The Race for Attention in an Era of Post-truth

Analysing Andrew Tate’s discourse in a time of post-truth and online attention economies

Student Name: Lukas Anthonissen

Student Number: 523753

Supervisor: Mr David Ongenaert

Master Media & Business

Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication
Erasmus University Rotterdam

Master Thesis
June 2023

Word Count: 17348

1
 Abstract

This paper examines how popular social media influencer Andrew Tate was able to attract
vast amounts of attention and amass millions of followers in the year of 2022. Focus is placed
on Tate due to the controversy of his online communications as well as the relevancy of his
negative influence concerning the young males he targets. As a result, this study takes a
qualitative exploratory approach where a multi-modal discourse analysis was conducted in
order to understand how Tate constructs his message and personal brand in order to garner
the attention he has received. With the research question: How does Andrew Tate construct
his personal branding in podcasts, interviews and talk shows in order to compete within
online attention economies? A subject of study that remains unexplored academically due to
the recency of Tate’s popularity. The phenomenon of Tate’s success also highlighted the
incompleteness of current research regarding personal branding, of which this study aimed to
solve. This was done by combining academic frameworks regarding attention seeking,
personal branding and authenticity management strategies. This study found that Tate was
able to compete in the attention economy by making use of strategies including engaging in
disruptive discourse, creating ante-narratives (stories with no end), orientating (the practice of
delivering advice) and attuning his message to an audience of men who feel disenfranchised,
of which demonstrate ‘attention capacity.’ Another motivating factor for why this study was
conducted was to bring awareness to the societal importance of critical thinking in this era of
digital communications. This is due to how developments in communication technologies
have brought about an increased relevance of economies of attention and post-truth.
Phenomenon which research argues contributes to the quantity and quality of information
available, loss of trust as well as the fragmentation of values. The reason for the relevancy of
post-truth is that this paper argues that online economies of attention are contributing to the
dissemination of alternative ‘truths’ into the mainstream. Where influencers such as Andrew
Tate can take advantage of this for enhancing their own influence and monetary gain.

KEYWORDS: Andrew Tate, Attention Economy, Post-truth, Personal branding, Social

media, Discourse, Masculinity.

2
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 4
2. THEORY ................................................................................................................................................. 8
2.1 HYPER-FLOW OF INFORMATION AND THE VALUE OF ATTENTION..................................................................................8
2.1.1 Personal Branding and Authenticity in the Attention Economy ............................................................9
2.1.2 Competing for Attention in OAEs ....................................................................................................... 11
2.2 DISCOURSE AND GENDER .................................................................................................................................. 13
2.2.1 Conceptualizing Discourse .................................................................................................................. 13
2.2.2 Conceptualizing Gender...................................................................................................................... 13
2.3 CRISIS OF MASCULINITY? EXPLORING MASCULINITY DISCOURSE ONLINE ................................................................... 15
2.4 POST-TRUTH ERA: INFORMATION, MANIPULATION AND INDOCTRINATION ................................................................. 17
3. METHOD .............................................................................................................................................. 21
3.1 QUALITATIVE APPROACH................................................................................................................................... 21
3.2 MOTIVATING MCDA ....................................................................................................................................... 21
3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN ........................................................................................................................................... 24
3.3.1 Sample Description ............................................................................................................................. 24
3.3.2 Operationalization .............................................................................................................................. 26
3.3.3 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 30
3.4 POSITIONALITY AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................................... 30
4. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................... 32
4.1 ATTENTION SEEKING STRATEGIES ........................................................................................................................ 32
4.1.1 Engaging in Polarizing Discourse and Disrupting ............................................................................... 33
4.1.2 Creating Ante-narratives .................................................................................................................... 35
4.1.3 Orientating.......................................................................................................................................... 39
4.1.4 Attuning to Attentive audiences ......................................................................................................... 41
4.1.5 Encouraging Amplification and Distilling ........................................................................................... 45
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 46
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 51

3
 1. Introduction
Andrew Tate, former professional kickboxer and online social media influencer has
taken the world by storm in recent times amassing billions of social media views and became
the worlds most googled man in 2022 (Nicol, 2022). This being a year of significant crisis
where internet users have proven to be more interested in the supposed ‘truths’ which Tate
proliferates than prominent figures such as Biden, Trump and Putin (Copland, 2022). Tate
has been able to successfully capture the attention of millions in large part due to his
controversial and polarizing discourse regarding masculinity, misogyny as well as exposing
‘truths’ of the “Matrix” society we live in, specifically targeting disaffected young men
(Copland, 2022). However, his ability to do so has been profound especially considering the
negative publicity he has received from legacy media as well as his on-going human
trafficking case (Das, 2022). Furthermore, efforts to cancel the influencer and remove his
content from social media platforms have failed as his content is still being circulated by
alternative accounts (Copland, 2022; Das, 2022). An interesting notion as attempts to remove
him from social media have only fuelled his narrative as a protagonist against the tyranny of
legacy media and against a more elusive enemy, the ‘Matrix’ with users flocking to protest
his cancellation (“Censorship Is Never the Answer”: Influencers Flock to Twitter over Ban
on “Menace” Worth $350 Million, 2022).
The phenomenon of his success is significant due to a multitude of factors. Firstly,
Tate makes an interesting case for discourse analysis due to the polarity and complexity of
his character as well as the discourse he participates in. In doing so Tate has positioned
himself and his brand in the middle of a contentious political debate regarding polarizing
topics such as censorship, gender, democracy where he specifically targets established
institutions under the guise of a war against the ‘Matrix’ (Cobratate | Live What You Dream,
2023; Copland, 2022; Das, 2022). Secondly, the phenomenon of his success is significant due
to its recency causing for it to be relatively unexplored in academic contexts. Furthermore, a
large point of contention regarding Tate is the detrimental effects his views are having,
considering his reach and potential influence he has on young males. Especially how they
perceive women with some teachers reporting increased misogyny of their male students
coming from his content (Dodgson & Dawson, 2023). This is relevant, especially concerning
how information can be disseminated into the mainstream where it can reach vulnerable
audience members who are more prone to influence. This being a process that is becoming
increasingly easier through contemporary means of consuming information and the
personalization that takes place via the use of computational algorithms. Being a motivating

4
factor for this study for the way Tate as a case can open a discussion into the way information
is produced and consumed in an era of post-truth and online economies of attention. Raising
interesting questions such as whether the problematic influence he has is a problem of Tate
and his message, or rather if it is a problem of the internet and the market he competes in?
To elaborate, the acceleration of digital communication technologies has had a major
impact on the lives of many, especially considering the quality and quantity of information
that is exchanged. Online social networking sites have facilitated spaces for users to engage
in discourse, especially as a space for people to come together and explore complex systems
of meaning such as gender, sexuality, status and success (Ging, 2017; Marwick & Lewis,
2017; Mountford, 2018, p. 3). Web 2.0 technologies have facilitated spaces for these
discussions both in niche spaces such as online internet forums as well as mainstream spaces
such as your TikTok or Instagram feed (CİBAROĞLU, 2019; Ging, 2017). Furthermore, the
acceleration of digital communications has made a hyper-flow of information accessible in
developing and developed countries (De Feis et al., 2016). Where users now have access to
more information that they can possibly consume. Uprooting past principles of market
structures where information must be cut, filtered and procured in order to convince the
onlooker that it is worth their time and engagement. This coupled with the use of
computational algorithms to target users with personalized content with the goal of
engagement has placed major emphasis on user attention as a commodity (Ven & Gemert,
2022). Thus, establishing online economies of attention (OAEs), which are platforms where
user attention is a finite resource of which players compete by seeking to attract as much
attention as possible (Smith & Fischer, 2021). However, the use of computational algorithms
poses a separate risk, especially considering the effect filter bubbles can have on the attitude
of individuals which has made these platforms a place where social media influencers who
brand themselves as ‘public intellectuals can have real influence (Ven & Gemert, 2022).
These developments have not only changed the way information is consumed but has also
changed the way information is produced. Especially, due to how social media influencers
(SMIs) and content creators are now forced to compete in these economies of attention.
Where different strategies must be incorporated such as making appeals towards
emotionality, narrative storytelling, offering advice or engaging in controversy (Mäkelä et al.,
2021; Smith & Fischer, 2021). Where factors such as objective truth and reason become less
prevalent in favour of virality, sensationalism and entertainment further contributing to the
post-truth world order (Cosentino, 2022; Mäkelä et al., 2021; Marwick & Lewis, 2017).

5
 In 2016, OxfordLanguages coined the word of the year as ‘post-truth’ which they
defined “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in
shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief” (Oxford Word of the
Year, 2016). Whilst the concept has been in academic discussions for the past decade, it has
become far more prevalent in recent discourse. In 2019, comedian Sacha Baron Cohen gave a
speech targeting the ‘silicon 6’ as running “The greatest propaganda machine in history”
where he concluded that the large ‘imperialistic’ tech companies can no longer be trusted to
regulate their business practices (Anti-Defamation League, 2019). Whilst the post-truth
discussion covers several inter-related elements, social media are usually pinned at the centre
of the discussion. Especially in regards to academics being critical towards platforms such as
Facebook which have been critiqued due to how the “logic of their algorithms and the
phycological incentives it generates are seen as culprits for the problems of political-
polarization, the ‘siloing’ of users into cognitive and cultural echo-chambers and the
circulation of various forms of false information” (Cosentino, 2020, p.5). This is also in large
part due to Web 2.0 technologies facilitating a hyper flow of information as it affords users
the ‘prosumer’ role which enable the free flow of user-generated content as well as constant
connection to emotionally charged economies of attention. ‘Prosumer’ role referring to how
Web 2.0 technologies afford users the ability to produce and consume online content.
Furthermore, in line with growing economies of attention, much of these practices are done
out of profit driven incentives, where information and content are pushed towards individuals
who demonstrate ‘attention capacity’.
Post-truth is of significant importance within this study as it contextualises OAEs in a
digital world where emotional appeal is often a defining factor that overrules the user’s
decision to watch one video over another (Smith & Fischer, 2021). Furthermore, a significant
motivating factor for this study is to highlight the relevance of critical thinking in all aspects
of citizenry in times of post-truth. Regardless of political agenda, post-truth is facilitating a
space of discourse that corrupts the “process by which facts are credibly gathered and reliably
used to shape one’s beliefs and perceptions about reality” (McIntyre, 2018, p. 1). A notion
this study argues to be of both significant societal and academic importance as corroborated
by the work of Jiménez-Aleixandre and Puig (2022). As a result, SMIs with an understanding
of post-truth and the attention economy such as Andrew Tate are able to take advantage and
compete for large amounts of attention by engaging in controversial discourse, thus making
him a relevant case in the context of understanding personal branding and the attention
economy in times of post-truth. Therefore, this paper seeks to answer the following research

6
question: How does Andrew Tate construct his personal branding in podcasts, interviews and
talk shows in order to compete in online economies of attention?

7
2. Theory

2.1 Hyper-flow of Information and the Value of Attention

Information in today’s society is of abundance to the point where it now constitutes a
hyper-information flow (De Feis et al., 2016, p. 27). The acceleration of communication
technologies, birth of social media and cloud computing, hyper-information flow has become
ubiquitous with day-to-day use in developed and most developing countries (De Feis et al.,
2016, p. 27). Hyper-information in short refers to the large flows of information facilitated by
user generated content and Web 2.0 technologies (Salomon, 2006). This being a phenomenon
that has drastically changed the way individuals consume information, products and services.
De Feis and others (2016), summarize a new market theory characterized by the hyper-
globalization following the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, with the birth of the internet
happening soon after, leading to an ever-developing information flow (p. 27). This new
conceptualization is relevant in understanding contemporary markets as the transmission of
products, services and content can no longer be accounted for based on traditional economic
paradigms such as supply and demand, but instead requires a further contextualized
assessment where factors such as trust and emotional appeal have become more influential in
the consumers decision to consume a product and/or service (De Feis et al., 2016). In
continuation, in 1997 Goldhaber coined the term ‘attention economy’ which De Feis and
colleagues (2016), corroborate as a force that will upend major pillars of market-based
exchange and demand new ways of thinking (Kubler, 2023).
Focus placed on mediated content is of importance as this paper seeks to explore how
the current media landscape funnels the flow of information. Furthermore, whilst information
is in abundance, our attention is not, bringing about the relevance of OAEs where SMIs are
required to distinguish themselves in order to compete for the valuable commodity of
audience attention (Smith & Fischer, 2021). Platforms which fall under the definition of
OAE’s are any digital platform which facilitates the distribution of user generated content
whilst also facilitating audience interaction with said content via commenting,
liking/disliking and sharing such as YouTube, Twitch, Rumble as well as social media
platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc (Marwick & Lewis, 2017 & Smith &
Fischer, 2021). The online attention economy has become a dominant model within digital
commerce with much criticism from the academic field. These critics include detrimental
effects of mental health and cognitive capacities, surveillance of personal data and the
fostering of addictive behaviour (Chomanski, 2022). As a result, OAEs as facilitators of

8
discourse is a problematic notion, especially when the value of content is determined by how
much attention it is worth. This paradigm breeds a market and circulation of information that
thrives off of sensationalism and clickbait in the post-truth era of the internet (Leroy et al.,
2018).

2.1.1 Personal Branding and Authenticity in the Attention Economy

As previously discussed, social media and web 2.0 technologies have facilitated and
brought about the prevalence of user generated content, facilitating a marketplace where
social media influencers (SMIs) compete for attention (Smith & Fischer, 2021). This shift
originated from the mass economic globalization taking place in the late 20th century and
early 21st century which introduced new arenas of competition facilitated by new information
and communication technologies (Lair et al., 2005). As a result, the employment marketplace
became saturated and more competitive calling for market players to take further steps to
differentiate themselves. Employee and employer relationships also changed where
employees could no longer depend on the employers for life-long employment commitments
and obligations (Scheidt et al., 2020). This can also be defined as the “widespread shift of the
responsibility of employees’ careers from organisations to individuals” (Gorbatov et al.,
2018, p. 1; Scheidt et al., 2020). This brought about an increased relevance of employees to
undertake their own entrepreneurial practices in order to enhance visibility in the
marketplace. Thus, visibility has become something akin to a currency in everyday life for
which market players need to prioritize, which is a notion that has only been accentuated in
the developing attention economy (Scheidt et al., 2020). These entrepreneurial practices
essentially functioning as personal branding strategies.
Personal branding as a concept has received significant academic attention due to this,
however the resulting outcome is that the research in this field is diverse and disconnected
without an integrated definition (Gorbatov et al., 2018; Scheidt et al., 2020). Originally,
personal branding research was situated in a discussion of self-presentation and impression
management. Such as the work of Schau & Gilly (2003), who conceptualized self-
presentation strategies in the context of Web 1.0 technologies. However, more contemporary
research such as that of Scheidt et al (2020) has argued that no self-presentation framework
has arisen from academic research that can be universally applied as the topic remains
heavily context dependent. However, systematic reviews of the literature such as that of
Gorbatov et al (2018), and Scheidt et al (2020), do well to conceptualize the main trends,

9
drivers, processes and outcomes of personal branding. This can be used to build
understanding of the main thought processes and intentions behind SMIs messages and media
output in the context of Web 2.0. Furthermore, a multi-disciplinary literature review
conducted by Gorbatov and his colleagues work to provide an integrated definition of
personal branding which follows: “Personal brand is a set of characteristics of an individual
(attributes, values, beliefs, etc.) rendered into the differentiated narrative and imagery with
the intent of establishing a competitive advantage in the minds of the target audience”
(Gorbatov et al., 2018, p. 6). This study makes use of this definition going forward due to
how it places emphasis on competitivity, which encapsulates previous research on positive
impression management, authenticity and attention seeking strategies (Gorbatov et al., 2018;
Scheidt et al., 2020). However, some researchers such as Audrezet and colleagues (2020),
argue that SMI’s need to look past self-presentation in favour of communicating authenticity.
Authenticity in the context of the individual’s and marketeers’ motivations can be
defined with the use self-determination theory. In this context, authenticity involves an
individual’s engagement in intrinsically motivated behaviours – “Those that emanate from a
person’s innate desires and passions” (Audrezet et al., 2020, p. 559). Audrezet et al (2020),
clarify two main authenticity strategies used by SMI’s including passionate authenticity and
transparent authenticity. Passionate authenticity refers to how the “notion of authentic people
or brands are those that are intrinsically motivated rather than extrinsically motivated”,
whereas transparent authenticity refers to “providing fact-based information about the
product or service at the centre of the brand partnership” (Audrezet et al., 2020, p. 565).
Regardless, authenticity management is a relevant factor to be addressed, of which generating
a positive audience perception of authenticity requires strenuous attention labour for SMIs to
successfully foster.
Attention labour can be conceptualized as a valorization activity which generates a
surplus value which is then monetized and turned into profit (Bueno, 2016). In large part
attention labour is done with the end goal of communicating and generating an audience
perception of authenticity which is necessary in the ‘celebrification’ process of online
influencers (Audrezet et al., 2020; Brooks et al., 2021). Celebrification referring to the
enhanced status acquired via successful SMI practices. Authenticity is key as individuals who
operate in OAEs rely on ‘person branding’ (Fournier & Eckhardt, 2019). Authenticity is also
key in understanding the relationship SMIs have with monetizing their attention labour,
especially if they are partnering with brands in exchange for the advertising of products and
services. Within OAEs, SMIs have been a key tool for which companies can use to

10
communicate their brand as SMIs function as trusted opinion leaders for which work to
enhance advertising effectiveness as well as positively effect consumer attitudes towards the
brand (De Jans et al., 2020). This is due to how SMI followers construct meanings of
authenticity via the SMIs perceived intrinsic motivations, transparency and non-commercial
orientation (Audrezet et al., 2020). As a result, brand affiliations can create conflicts of
interest and complicate the authenticity management of SMIs (Audrezet et al., 2020). This
can be avoided when SMIs undertake their own personal entrepreneurial efforts alongside
their media output as it allows them to remain autonomous over the monetization of their
own content (Guinez-Cabrera & Aquaveque, 2022). Despite this the acquisition of audience
attention and maintaining of it via constant engagement is a necessary step required for SMIs
to compete in OAE’s.

2.1.2 Competing for Attention in OAEs

Digital entrepreneurship has been a popular topic within academia with more
consumers taking on the producer role in order to monetize attention within OAE’s. SMIs
thereby form “an entrepreneur who funds their venture and creates financial wealth by
promoting knowledge, competence, and abilities in their chosen interest” (Lee & Theokary,
2021, p. 860). These SMIs participate in a hyper contextualised market for which they have
to distinguish themselves in order to foster audiences and monetize their efforts (2.1.2). Key
indicators of success have changed in the attention economy which is of significant
importance when it comes to both measuring success but also in understanding the
messengers’ intentions. As an example, viewership has lost its importance in favour of
indications of attention which involve items such as commenting, liking and the sharing of
content (Smith & Fischer, 2021). If key indicators for success call for SMIs to attract as much
attention as possible, this will thus have an effect on how SMIs produce their content and
engage in attention labour. In that regard, previous research has made distinctions between
‘aversive attention’ and ‘attractive attention.’ Aversive attention refers to when people pay
attention to escape and avoid negative experiences, whereas attractive attention refers to
when people pay attention because it may have value in helping then achieve positive
experiences (Davenport & Beck 2001). These distinctions are of importance as it implies that
attention can be acquired by either appealing to the escapism gratifications of audience

11
members or by achieving positive audience perceptions of value which can be gained by
consuming the content in question.
As a result, for the purposes of this study it is important to understand the tools used
by influencers in order to attract, maintain and compete for audience attention in OAEs.
Smith and Fischer (2021) provide a theoretical framework of the tools used which include
attuning to attentive audiences, distilling, constructing ‘antenarratives’, orientating,
disrupting and encouraging amplification (p. 268). See Table 1 for the definition of attention
seeking constructs conceptualized by Smith & Fischer (2021).

Table 1
Definitions of Attention constructs illustrated by Smith & Fischer (2021)
Construct Label Definition

Attuning to Attentive Observing audiences and targeting those that demonstrate

Audiences ‘attention capacity’

Distilling Creating headlines or titles that succinctly signal that a post has
audience relevant content.

Constructing Creating “Antenarratives”: texts that include narrative elements

‘Antenarratives’ (Such as settings, plot and characters) that get added and dropped
over time, and that incorporate different perspectives and themes
overtime, without ever reaching a formal narrative closure.

Orientating Offering direct, well rationalized, advice or guidance to audience

members about potential decisions that are relevant to them.

Disrupting Offering novel and counter-intuitive perspectives on events,

issues or objects, and doing so in provocative ways

Encouraging Encouraging audience members to engage in actions that will help

Amplification attract further attention.

12
 (Smith & Fischer, 2021, p. 268).

2.2 Discourse and Gender

The following section is dedicated to conceptualizing contemporary discourse in

online digital communications as well as the role gender plays in it. More specifically, gender
discourse is a salient topic within this body of research due to how it is a popular topic of
conversation contributing to Andrew Tate’s popularity in 2022 (Artsy, 2023; Suguira, 2023).
Furthermore, a conceptualisation of discourse is mandatory as it is the object of study in this
paper.

2.2.1 Conceptualizing Discourse

Discourse is primarily associated with a vast amount of research concerned with
understanding human communication through complex and inter-related systems of shared
meaning (Gillen & Peterson, 2005). Not to be confused with linguistics which primarily
concerns the study and analysis of language. Discourse instead takes a historical approach to
the construction of meaning taking into account a variety of socio-cultural elements including
power relations, ideologies, institutions, social identities and so forth (Fairclough, 2013). For
the most part discourse is still understood as a linguistic action, “be it written visual or oral
communication, verbal or non-verbal, undertaken by social actors, in a specific setting
determined by social rules, norms and conventions (Mautner et al., 2017, p. 5). Another
characteristic of discourse as the object of study is that it takes advantage of social
constructivism where concepts such as race, gender, ability, identity and sexuality are
socially constructed phenomenon shaped by cultural and historical contexts (Stetsenko &
Arievitch, 1997).

2.2.2 Conceptualizing Gender

Gender is a complex multifaceted concept, of which the meaning has changed
significantly overtime. It refers to the cultural and social roles, behaviours and expectations

13
that are associated with one’s sex being male, female or non-binary (Richardson, 2008).
Before continuing, it is important to distinguish the biological from the social. Whilst ones
predetermined sex refers to the biological dimension, gender more specifically is a socially
constructed phenomenon for which societal members design (Stets & Burk, 2000).
Furthermore, gender is not determined by one’s biological sex but instead relies on factors
such as interpersonal differences and experiences, culture, family and society (Richardson,
2008). It also encompasses a vast range of identities, expressions and sexual orientations.
This is further corroborated by how gender is performed and illustrated differently in
different cultures (Gutmann, 1997).
The concept of gender has also evolved overtime and has been a prevalent point of
discussion in academic literature. There are several different theoretical perspectives on
gender, including the essentialist view, social constructivist, feminist gender theory,
intersectionality and finally the post-modernist view (Richardson, 2008). Early accounts of
academic gender discourse were concerned with ‘natural’ and ‘biological’ explanations for
differences in human behaviour causing for gender to be viewed one in the same with one’s
sex (Richardson, 2008). This was known as the essentialist view. Further sociological
research would bring about the social constructionist approach which highlighted the socio-
cultural relevancy of gender and how it is defined differently in different cultures (Gutmann,
1997; Richardson, 2008). Feminist gender-theory supports the social constructionist
perspective but places emphasis on the role of power and discusses how gender relates to
social, economic and cultural constructions of power (Richardson, 2008). Intersectionality
takes this further by discussing gender in relation to race and introduces new perspectives on
power relations taking into account layers of oppression (Richardson, 2008). Finally,
researchers such as Judith Butler reconceptualized gender and argued its performativity
which was incredibly influential as it illustrated that gender is continuously produced and
shaped through everyday practices and social interactions (Richardson, 2008). Taking into
account the academic perspectives discussed it is important to realize the notion of gender
being an ambiguous concept, where modern gender research tends to characterize it as a form
of identity expression. A performance that requires understanding of complex contexts, not
only pertaining to a particular speech event but also requires knowledge of cultural
expectations of gender as well as social structures (Kiesling, 2001). As a result, gender has
become a popular topic of contemporary discourse where people come together to explore
their gender identity, including and increasingly in online settings (Bowker, 2001).

14
2.3 Crisis of Masculinity? Exploring Masculinity Discourse Online
Masculinity can be “understood as a repertoire of authoritative stances that implicate
a social hierarchy” (Kiesling, 2001, p.250). In recent times there has been a growing niche of
men feeling emasculated and blaming modern society for it (Munsch & Gruys, 2018). This is
a significant topic in a discussion surrounding gender as research has shown that feelings of
emasculation are synonymous with outcomes such as physical aggression, victim blaming as
well as the expression of misogynistic and anti-gay attitudes (Bossom et al., 2009; O’Connor
et al., 2017; Weaver & Vescio, 2015; Munsch & Gruys, 2018, p. 375). Following the
acceleration of communication technologies after the birth of the internet and introduction of
web 2.0, the internet has afforded digital spaces online where users can connect and establish
discourse with each other. Especially as a safe space for users to collectively explore their
gender identity (Mountford, 2018). But also, as safe spaces for users to express contrarian
and controversial ideas. Further exaggerated by how dominant discourses of masculinity
provide competing scripts for how male solidarity and heterosexuality is structured, with
research suggesting that men actively negotiate dominant cultural discourses in their
everyday interactions (Kiesling, 2005).
In regards to masculinity discourse, an example of this would be the manosphere
which is termed as a loose collection of groups of androcentric communities including men’s-
rights activists, gamergate, the alt-right and pickup artist forums (PUA) (Van Valkenburgh,
2021). Androcentrism referring to the propensity to centre society around men and men’s
needs, values and priorities relegating women to the periphery (Bailey et al., 2019). These
online communities also serve as a place of discourse for more niche groups such as incel’s
(involuntary celibates), androphiles (same-sex attracted males who don’t identify as
homosexuals), and more fringe groups (Marwick & Lewis, 2017). For the most part discourse
between members of these groups is relegated to platforms which afford users with
anonymity. It is this same anonymity that attracts users with counter-cultural beliefs and
often non-socially-acceptable views as it alleviates risks of these controversial takes having
an effect on them in real life (Mountford, 2018). Key characteristics of these niche groups
and what they share in common is their misogynistic and anti-feminist takes as well as an
aversion to ideas of political correctness and virtue signalling (Marwick & Lewis, 2017).

15
Another shared trait amongst groups within the manosphere is the interest in discourse
surrounding masculinity and its alleged crisis (Lily, 2016).
In continuation, a new philosophy has been derived and as such further transcends the
borders of groups within the manosphere. This new philosophy has been termed as ‘The Red
Pill’ (TRP), which Van Valkenburgh (2018), defines as superficially solving hegemonic
masculinity’s prescriptive emotional walls with the inherent desire for connection by
constructing women as exchangeable commodities (p. 1). A very important aspect of the TRP
is the ante-narrative it is based on. As the name insinuates TRP is derived from The Matrix
where the main character is given a choice of taking a ‘blue pill’ which means switching off
and living a life of delusion or being a ‘sheep’ to be herded; or taking the ‘red pill’ which
means becoming enlightened to life’s ugly truths (Ging, 2017). This same metaphor is used
in constructing anti-feminist discourse under the gaze of TRP, especially in counter to the
institutionalization and professionalization as well as the emergence of widespread
postfeminist cultural sensibility (Messner, 2016, p. 639). For which they argue to be the
cause of young male disenfranchisement (Ging, 2017; Van Valkenburg, 2018). Whilst groups
within the manosphere partake in differing topics of discourse Ging (2017), argues that TRP
remains the philosophy that theoretically unites different groups of the manosphere. This is
largely accomplished by how these groups use economical, psychological and rational
androcentric logics to commodify women in the conquest for sexual and/or external/internal
validation, status, legacy and success (Ribeiro et al., 2021; Van Valkenburg, 2018).
Whilst these discussions are for the most part relegated to niche online spaces of the
internet, TRP has been able to transcend these niches and make its way into mainstream
discourse (Marwick & Lewis, 2021). This was accomplished with the uptake of Men’s rights
activists following the writings of Warren Farrell and his work The myth of male power
(Jaye, 2016). An understanding of the discourse that takes place within the manosphere can
give insight into the meanings which these masculinists in general identify themselves with.
More importantly little is known about the influence this discourse is having due to the topic
receiving little empirical research (Van Valkenburg, 2018). Especially regarding how
information from these niche groups can be disseminated into the mainstream where it can
reach vulnerable audience members who are more prone to influence. Furthermore, the socio-
cultural relevance is apparent due to the concerning reality of TRP discourse with journalists
characterising TRP channels as the “online heart of modern misogyny” (Marche, 2016). With
some of the most striking manifestations of TRP discourse being the defence of rape culture
and paleo-masculine beliefs of male superiority and domination (Ging, 2017).

16
2.4 Post-Truth Era: Information, Manipulation and Indoctrination
As previously mentioned, the notion of post-truth refers to “relating to or denoting
circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than
appeals to emotion and personal belief” (Oxford Word of the Year, 2016). Where factors
such as emotion have become far more salient in regards to receptivity of online information.
However, post-truth does not imply that there are now ‘more emotions’ that mediate online
communications, but instead that there is a shift in awareness to emotion as a determining
factor (Boler & Davis, 2018). Where concepts such as truthiness which refers to the “quality
of seeming or felt to be true, even if not necessarily true” become more apparent (Boler &
Davis, 2018, p. 75). Post-truth specifically functions as an ordering device, a concept that
serves as a means to create order in a complex reality (Braun, 2019). However, for the
purposes of this study as corroborated by Braun (2019), an important question for post-truth
is “what aspects of reality it helps us to understand better and what aspects it rather obscures”
(p. 432). As a result, post-truth functions as a lens for which complex discourses,
relationships and systems of meaning can be viewed. Salgado (2018), elaborates on the socio-
cultural development of post-truth and the role post-modernism has played summarizing:

No absolute and definitive truths exist and values, knowledge and ultimately reality
are relative to discourse and interplay, which often gives rise to contradictory
interpretations of reality (…). The difference between modernity and postmodernity
lies precisely in the proposal of an ontology of reality versus a construction of reality,
that is, if reality pre-exists to be discovered or if it is instead constructed through
subjective discourse and interpretation (Salgado, 2018, p. 321).

Thus, as corroborated by Cosentino (2020), Postmodernism functions as a precursor

to ideological fragmentation and cultural relativism in the current post-truth era, where “the
subjective personal experience of reality supersedes any ontology of a pre-existing reality”
(p. 18). As previously mentioned, I would argue that OAEs are contributing to the
dissemination of alternative truths into the mainstream. It is within these economies of
attention where researchers have argued that participants take part in ‘truth-games’, examples
of which include the Q-Anon conspiracies which circulated throughout the Trump presidency

17
(Cosentino, 2020). This is due to how the internet affords the ability for individuals to seek
out and connect to others with the same alternative beliefs and foster the creation of specific
ideological filter bubbles (Boler & Davis, 2018). Where participants exchange ideas or
‘truths’ in exchange for gratification, status and identity (Consentino, 2020). Participation in
these truth-games is much a like to what Cohen was referring to with “lies spreading faster
than truths” (Anti-Defamation League, 2019). Harsin (2015), elaborates upon this by creating
an argument for differing regimes of post-truth used to manage citizen-consumers by making
them believe “(a) accept that there is no way ultimately to verify truth, (b) believe their own
truth arbiters in their markets, and subsequently (c) engage in vigorous counterclaiming and
debunking” (p. 6). Where actors who succumb to these truth games slowly become siloed
into differing fragmenting groups.
It is in these truth games that ideas are shared, agreed or disagreed upon. However,
the isolated nature of these discourses fosters the creation of new ideologies or regimes.
Ideologies function as shared ideas or ‘belief systems’ that are not constrained on the
individual level but on the social (Van Dijk, 2011). As a result, they can be contrasted to the
sharing of socio-cultural knowledge in developing online communities. The reason for this
relevancy is that the same online spaces that foster and facilitate masculinity discourse are
producing nuanced counter-cultural ideas such as that of Red Pill (Ging, 2017). Furthermore,
as ideologies function within group thinking they can be appropriated in a way to protect the
shared existence of said group. Ideologies protect the shared interests of groups by often
articulating relationships with other more dominant groups (Van Dijk, 2011). The red pill
ideology does this through the systematic objectification of women, pro free speech rhetoric
as well as deeming normal folk as sheep succumbing to the matrix (Marwick & Lewis, 2017;
Ging, 2017). Creating an insider-outsider mentality in order to safeguard ideals of the group’s
rhetoric. In a discussion of ideology and discourse, manipulation is another key facet.
Manipulation concerns the abuse of power by means of discourse: “Manipulators make
others believe or do things that are in the interest of the manipulator, and against the best
interest of the manipulated” (Van Dijk, 2006, p. 360). The reasoning for the relevance of
ideology and manipulation is due to accounts of individuals falling or succumbing to the Red
Pill. As an example, there is a subreddit titled r/exredpill which is devoted to ‘detoxing’ red
piller’s from there ideology and provides academic and non-academic literature to counter
Red Pill arguments as well as for former red piller’s to find common ground (R/Exredpill,
2023). The subreddit also features several accounts of users calling for advice on family
members who have fallen into the ideology, detailing how their behaviour is being negatively

18
shaped (R/Exredpill, 2023). Implying that these ideologies are having an indoctrinating
effect, as well as a negative effect on behaviour.
Social media contributing to the hyper-information flow has also changed how
information is exchanged and received with narrative storytelling coming to the forefront of
multiple disciplines of discussion (Mäkelä et al., 2021). As an example, Mäkelä and
colleagues (2021), conclude that narrative storytelling contributes to post-truthfulness in the
public sphere as it shields itself from fact checking on three levels: experientiality,
representativeness and normativity (p. 19). Firstly, personal experience is resistant to
falsification, secondly dialogues of representation are cemented by the consensus of
‘affective publics’ (Mäkelä et al., 2021). Finally, affective consensus of a ‘good cause’
eclipses criticism of individual stories in favour of the ‘greater purpose’ the story is serving
(Mäkelä et al., 2021). In short post-truth can be further characterised by compelling
storytelling usurping the place of empirical facts in determining our shared social reality
(Kraatila, 2019). This strategy of storytelling is then appropriated by SMIs corroborated by
Smith & Fischer (2021), with one of the attentions seeking constructs being the use of ante-
narratives in order to attract audience attention. Largely due to how we consume stories better
than information with storytelling shown to aid in voluntary cooperation and with character
driven story-telling shown to elevate levels of oxytocin, the “It’s safe to approach others”
neurochemical (Zak, 2014, p. 1).
The reasoning for the relevancy of understanding post-truth is that the same patterns
of discourse are being seen in that of gender discourse. More specifically with groups of
young men of privilege feeling a growing disdain and disenfranchisement as a result of the
emerging post-feminist cultural sensibility (Ging, 2017: Marwick & Lewis, 2017; Messner,
2016). These groups or individuals are then pulled towards alternative viewpoints and engage
in discourse within ideological filter bubbles where their counter cultural beliefs go
unchallenged (Marwick & Lewis, 2017). It is within these groups that individuals can foster
social identities of which have been shown to shape perceptions of truth whilst furthering the
fragmentation of values (Wang et al., 2022). In OAEs where attention is heavily
commodified, it can be argued that SMIs that brand themselves as ‘public intellectuals’ take
advantage of this by attuning their message to a specific audience and their values (Smith &
Fischer, 2021). What is significant however, is when these messages are disseminated into
the mainstream where vulnerable users have the potential to be indoctrinated. This is where
civil discourse stops as reaching a consensus is no longer the goal, but it is instead to convert

19
audience members from one side to the other, or to persuade audience members to pick a side
if they have not done so yet.

20
3. Method

3.1 Qualitative Approach

This section is dedicated to a discussion of the methodology as well as ethical
considerations. This will be done so in order to lay the ground work for analysis in an attempt
to answer the RQ: How does Andrew Tate construct his personal branding in podcasts,
interviews and talk shows in order to compete in online attention economies?
As this study is aimed towards the construction of meaning between discursive
events, a qualitative research approach will be taken. This is due to how meaning is a socially
constructed phenomenon which individuals define in their interaction with the world, which
cannot be measured by a fixed and measurable phenomenon that positivist, quantitative
research relies upon (Merriam, 2002). In doing so, qualitative research is equipped for
assessing questions involving the ‘how’ as it allows for the analysis of phenomenon within
it’s given context. Whilst discourse has several definitions, it is for the most part understood
as a linguistic action, “be it written, visual or oral communication, verbal or non-verbal,
undertaken by social actors in a specific setting determined by social rules, norms and
conventions” (Mautner et al., 2017, p. 5). Adopting the social constructivist approach this
paper will analyse content featuring Andrew Tate published by third parties and the way
meaning is constructed within the context of the post-truth world order, the current landscape
of masculinity discourse and strategies used to compete in online attention economies. This
paper will exclude content produced and published by Andrew Tate and his team in order to
address the way he engages in discourse transparently without having to navigate factors such
as the editing of content to serve his image and brand. The analysis of third-party content
featuring Tate also allows for further discursive elements to be assessed such as the way his
ideas are critiqued, debated and distributed by him to his community.

3.2 Motivating MCDA

In order to answer the research question, a multimodal critical discourse analysis
(MCDA) will be conducted. The main motivating factor for choosing MCDA is due to how it
facilitates a methodology that allows for a contextualised analysis. By combining traditions
of social analysis with language studies, it allows for the critical analysis of social elements
including “power relations, ideologies, institutions, social identities and so forth”
(Fairclough, 2013, p. 9). Critical discourse analysis can be summarized as a combined use of

21
differing linguistic approaches. The use of linguistic tools embedded in a detailed analysis
allows for the interpretation of actors or authors, more precisely addressing how they use
language and grammatical features to produce meaning and influence audiences in a
particular way, sometimes concealing their communicative intentions (Machin & Mayr,
2012). This process is facilitated by how MCDA views discourse as a ‘social practice’ where
a dialectical relationship is described between a particular discursive event and the situations,
institutions and social structures which frame it (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016). For which
construction of meaning is subject to discursive interplay as actors involved are aware of the
social and societal contexts that frame their speech.
MCDA’s long history of development combined with the interdisciplinary use of
multiple methodologies, provides an advanced approach towards conducting multi-modal
studies (Wang, 2014). However, as a result it is subject to multiple academic perceptions.
Within the context of this study, focus will be placed on the functional semiotic perspective
which highlights that meaning is constructed through multiple modes of communication
(Wang, 2014). With interest in combining semiotic analysis with MCDA, Machin and Mayr
(2012), provide a framework facilitating the combination of MCDA and multimodal analysis.
Therefore, tools used for the following analysis include signs of meaning both denoted and
connoted, overlexicalization, suppression, structural oppositions, lexical choices and genre of
communication (Machin & Mayr, 2012). Referring to the semiotic distinction in line with the
work of Machin & Mayr (2012), denotation refers to a relationship between the content and
expression whereas connotation refers to the signs or more specifically, the underlying
metalanguage in use (Sonneson, 1998). Overlexicalization refers to the meaning that is
produced when something is emphasised within a given text. Usually found when words and
synonyms are used in an abundance of which can give meaning to the persuasion taking place
often concerning notions that are deemed problematic or that are of ideological contention
(Machin & Mayr, 2012). Suppression or lexical absence on the other hand refers to aspects of
the text which we would expect appearing absent or under emphasised and the meaning that
this subsequently produces. Structural opposition refers to oppositions within texts such as
good or evil, young or old, etc. Structural opposition refers to how meaning is produced when
one of these qualities is mentioned as it implies differences from the qualities of its opposite
without these qualities being overtly stated (Machin & Mayr, 2012, p. 39). Much in line with
the social semiotic theory that words function within networks of meaning and not just on
their own. Finally, lexical choices and genre of communication more specifically refer to the
context of which communication is taking place, where more emphasis is placed on the

22
meaning that is created due to relations of power. An example of this would be when authors
attempt to influence us by convincing that they have power over us (Machin & Mayr, 2012).
Likewise, meaning can also be generated when authors attempt to informalize their message
as it could seem that they are communicating to us on equal terms. The semiotic tools
described above will be used in order to analyse and contextualise the semiotic choices of the
actors being assessed.
To continue, as previously mentioned MCDA does not access language exclusively,
but instead takes into account multiple factors which contribute to the construction of
meaning and communication. In order to assess these factors, Machin & Mayr (2012),
provide the tools which represent speech, people and actions. Presentation of speech provides
language and visual resources for the analysis of social actors which can be used to signify
broader discourses as well as ideas and values which are not overtly stated (Machin & Mayr,
2012). In regards to language resources, Machin & Mayr (2012), differentiate the use of
verbs within texts which can be used to signify guilt, lack of agency and emotional intensity.
Whereas the visual resources provided place emphasis on the social actor’s gaze and pose as
additional evaluated aspects as part of meaning construction (Machin & Mayr, 2012). The
second set of tools proposed by Machin & Mayr (2012), discuss representations of people
which allow us to place and contextualise social actors in world, highlighting aspects of their
identity according to the messengers’ intentions. Some of the tools provided include 1)
Personalisation and impersonalisation, 2) Individualisation versus collectivisation, 3)
Specification and genericisation, 4) Nomination or functionalisation, etc. Similar to the
previous example, these tools can be used for the analysis of visual texts as well. These
conclude the tools provided by Machin & Mayr (2012), which proved relevant in the
analysis. However, a tool not mentioned concerning the representation of others which
proved relevant in this study was generalization. Generalization in the context of representing
others can be defined as a categorization practice of using statements about people or groups
of people as a basis of stating something about a category (Hauser, 2011). Generalization is
of prevalence in this study as it allows for meaning creation regarding instructions on how to
understand individuals and groups (Hauser, 2011). As a result, the process of generalization
has discursive and ideological implications in the way the individuals or groups are
represented by others and was found to be a linguistic tool relevant in this analysis.
In the context of this research MCDA will prove invaluable in dissecting Andrew
Tate’s discourse in relation to the way he is able to construct his personal branding to
compete within OAEs. The tools discussed above will provide the framework for the analysis

23
of both language and visual texts. This MCDA analysis will be completed by the strategies
presented in the theoretical framework in order to contextualise the analysis within the
attention economy as well as personal branding. Tracing Tate’s discourse to niche and
mainstream masculinity rhetoric as well as post-truth era will further aid in contextualising
this analysis and contribute to the discussion of this paper. Secondly, another advantage of
MCDA as a research method is the criticality which it offers. It is through this criticality that
MCDA emphasizes the use of interdisciplinary research via: “(1) Critical Theory should be
directed at the totality of society in its historical specificity and (2) Critical Theory should
improve the understanding of society by integrating all the major social sciences, including
economics, sociology, history, political science, anthropology and psychology (Reisigl &
Wodak, 2016, p. 6). As a result, MCDA allows for the inclusion of multiple facets of
theoretical disciplines which can aid in: firstly, understanding how Tate constructs his image,
and secondly contextualizing the reasoning behind his message and the construction of his
persona gaining vast amounts of popularity in recent times. MCDA also emphasizes the
critical approach the researcher must take into evaluating their position as a member of
society and not someone who is emancipated from it (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016). In order to
achieve this, various steps will be taken to ensure the analysis is not biased and standardised
(See Section 3.3). Furthermore, a practice of constant reflexivity will be taken in the process
of writing this paper to ensure topics are covered in a non-biased manner and that a big
picture approach is taken in regards to the discussion of the findings.

3.3 Research Design

3.3.1 Sample Description

In order to conduct an MCDA analysis, 12 videos will be examined comprising of
podcasts and talk show formats which feature Andrew Tate. This is due to how his long form
content is clipped and reposted by individuals within his affiliate marketing scheme which
acts as his main strategy of accessing OAE’s (Das, 2022). The podcasts/mediated discussions
will be selected as they are the main source of content where Tate engages in discourse
surrounding his polarizing views, where the concept of masculinity is often present as it is
central to addressing the majority male following, he has amassed. Furthermore, the
reasoning for assessing both podcasts and talk shows is that they both share the similarity of

24
facilitating discussions on polarising topics where ideas are introduced and contested. The
time frame for selecting these texts will range between year of 2022 stating 1st January 2022
before he was arrested and detained on charges of human trafficking on December 29 th 2022
(Das, 2023). 2022 will be analysed for context building up to these events, but primarily due
to it being the year where Tate managed to become the worlds most googled man (Nicol,
2022). Furthermore, as previously mentioned several of the texts chosen for this analysis his
ideas are often heavily critiqued by the interviewer or other guests present in the discussion.
This is especially the case when he is featured in mainstream media and his ideas are
challenged due to the influence he is having on younger generations. As a result, he is forced
to defend his beliefs both to protect his image as well as his brand. Making use of the tools
supplied by MCDA could further aid in dissecting his argumentation as well as positioning
the concept of masculinity in contemporary discourse. Please see Table 2 for a detailing of
media items analysed.

Table 2: Items Assessed

Items Title Duration Link
1. ANDREW TATE - THE TRUTH 2:00:43 VIBEZ. (2022). ANDREW TATE - THE TRUTH
about ILLUMINATI , and about ILLUMINATI , and EXPOSING
EXPOSING BALENCIAGA BALENCIAGA !!! [YouTube Video].
In YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8-
43XC5ZL4&t=47s

2. Andrew Tate & Pearl DEBATE 3:08:06 JustPearlyThings. (2022). Andrew Tate & Pearl
Modern Women The Pregame Ep DEBATE Modern Women | The Pregame
100 Ep 100 [YouTube Video]. In YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TuilbZ
1j58

3. ANDREW TATE AND CHIAN 1:08:09 Stand Out TV. (2022). ANDREW TATE AND
DO NOT GET ALONG Grilling CHIAN DO NOT GET ALONG | Grilling
S2 Ep 7 S2 Ep 7 [YouTube Video]. In YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1S9o
OgnGp0

4. Andrew Tate Predicted his 1:46:52 O’Malley, S. (2022). Andrew Tate Predicted his
Arrest? Will Tate do BJJ? | UFC 280
Arrest Will Tate do BJJ UFC 280
[YouTube Video]. In YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYnDB
SMMaGk&t=3070s

5. ANDREW TATE UNCENSORED 2:27:04 TK Talks. (2022). ANDREW TATE

UNCENSORED - Fighting Logan Paul,
- Fighting Logan Paul, Reverting to
Reverting to ISLAM, Attacks from
ILLUMINATI -Exclusive [YouTube
Video]. In YouTube.

25
 ISLAM, Attacks from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDn7Ey
I-E48&t=1s
ILLUMINATI
6. Andrew Tate Uncensored Interview 2:04:39 Leeds, S. (2022). Andrew Tate Uncensored
Interview: Samuel Leeds October 2022
Samuel Leeds October 2022
[YouTube Video]. In YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjJwo
MhIU-U&t=3185s

7. Andrew Tate vs Piers Morgan The 1:14:49 Piers Morgan Uncensored. (2022). Andrew Tate vs
Piers Morgan | The Full Interview
Full Interview
[YouTube Video]. In YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGWG
cESPltM&t=1351s

8. Andrew Tate's LAST Interview 2:27:20 STRIKE IT BIG. (2022). Andrew Tate’s LAST
Interview Before Arrest! (MUST SEE)
Before Arrest! (MUST SEE)
[YouTube Video]. In YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4Ta3sr
GmXo&t=375s

9. Exclusive Andrew Tate 4:52:10 PBD Podcast. (2022). Exclusive: Andrew Tate
UNCENSORED Interview with UNCENSORED Interview with Patrick Bet-
Patrick Bet-David David [YouTube Video]. In YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv-
C4CVGk28

10. FULL SEND PODCAST - With 2:21:36 Full ReSend. (2022). FULL SEND PODCAST -
With ANDREW TATE!!! [YouTube
ANDREW TATE!!!
Video]. In YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJyTkL
gW_KI&t=1s
11. Piers Morgan Takes On Andrew 0:46:05 Piers Morgan Uncensored. (2022). Piers Morgan
Takes On Andrew Tate AGAIN! | The Full
Tate AGAIN! The Full Interview
Interview #2 [YouTube Video]. In YouTube.
#2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QcZS
Vu3CCY&t=1s

12. Your Mom's House Podcast w 2:42:28 YMH Studios. (2022). Your Mom’s House Podcast
w/ Andrew Tate - Ep.636 [YouTube Video].
Andrew Tate - Ep.636
In YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsp69j
YlYsg&t=5346s

3.3.2 Operationalization
In order to conduct this analysis, the linguistic framework of MCDA provided by
Machin & Mayr (2012), will be used to critically assess the way Andrew Tate constructs his
personal brand in order to compete within OAEs. As a result, this analysis will be
contextualized in the sphere of the attention economy, making use of literature regarding
factors which determine success within OAE’s, as well as strategic self-presentation in

26
OAE’s (Please see table 3 for operationalization of assessed concepts). This will be done in
an attempt to explore how Andrew Tate has successfully captured and monetized the
attention of millions of users throughout 2022. This will be done making use of the constructs
for acquiring user attention as put forward by Smith & Fischer (2021), including: Attuning to
attentive audiences, Distilling, constructing ‘Ante-narratives’, Orientating, Disrupting and
encouraging amplification. In order to situate this analysis in a discussion of personal
branding, relevant in a discussion of SMI branding, Gorbatov et al (2018) and Scheidt et al
(2020) provide systematic reviews of personal branding which will aid in further
contextualising this analysis. Furthermore, as previously discussed, the above-mentioned
personal branding research undermines the prevalence of authenticity management.
Communicating authenticity is essential towards dictating success of SMIs so there for
Audrezet et al (2020), conceptualizations of both passionate and transparent authenticity will
be used to further contextualise the analysis.
Further examples of research regarding strategies used by social media influencers
(SMI) have pointed to factors such as constructions of digital likeness, the reorganization of
narrative structures as well as the portrayal of self-fulfilling prophecies (Schau & Gilly, 2003;
Smith & Fischer, 2021). These are constructs that will aid in MCDA of Andrew Tate’s
rhetoric. Furthermore, SMI’s that brand themselves as ‘public intellectuals’ who of which
engage in often polarizing discourse have been shown to promote filter bubbles instead of
furthering democracy. This is where personality and emotion is favoured over the message,
where SMI’s attract the valuable commodity of attention through the use of self-
representation, ‘clickbait’, extreme emotions and polarizing discourse (Ven & Gemert, 2022).
This is the reasoning for why Tate’s rhetoric and the potential influence it can have should be
contextualised within the post-truth order where the relationship between emotion and truth
has been uprooted. This can work to open the discussion into how SMI’s are potentially
taking advantage of the increased fragmentation and polarisation of ideas in order to build
their audience following.

Table 3: Operationalization of assessed concepts

Smith & Fischer (2021): Constructs for attention seeking strategies

Attuning to attentive Observing audiences and targeting those that demonstrate
audiences ‘attention capacity’

27
 As this is an analysis of discourse, we cannot assess who is
being targeted or not. What can be observed is the ‘us and
them’ division, or how does Tate depict his supporters as well
as people who oppose them. Or methods he uses to make his
message appealing and target young men as an example.

Distilling Creating headlines or titles that successfully signal that a post

has audience relevant content.

Also, not particularly relevant as we are not assessing the

‘click bait’ of his content. It is important to note that every
title of video assessed in this study exhibits clickbait strategy
with ANDREW TATE’s name in bold or “Last interview
before his arrest.”

Constructing Creating “Antenarratives”: texts that include narrative

‘Antenarratives’ elements (Such as settings, plot and characters) that get added
and dropped over time, and that incorporate different
perspectives and themes overtime, without ever reaching a
formal narrative closure.

This will be assessed and coded based on Tate’s usage of

narrative storytelling in order to get his ideas across.

Orientating Offering direct, well rationalized, advice or guidance to

audience members about potential decisions that are relevant
to them.

This will be assessed and coded based on the advice and

guidance Tate offers especially in the case of competition,
wealth creation and mental health.

28
Disrupting Offering novel and counter-intuitive perspectives on events,
issues or objects, and doing so in provocative ways

This will be coded based on Andrew Tate’s contrarian or

novel ideas used to create controversy, instigate and attract
attention.

Encouraging Encouraging audience members to engage in actions that will

Amplification help attract further attention.

This will be assessed based on Andrew Tates ability to direct

his audiences in dispersing his content, both directly and
indirectly.

Audrezet et al (2020): Conceptualizing Authenticity

Passionate Authenticity Notion of authentic people or brands are those that are
intrinsically motivated rather than extrinsically motivated.

This will be assessed and coded based on Tate’s ability to

defend his ideals as well as his motivations for the content he
produces. Motivations based in his intrinsic beliefs were also
coded as passionate Authenticity.

Transparent Authenticity Transparent authenticity refers to providing objective fact-

based information about said product and/or service whilst
also disclosing the contractual terms of the partnership if
present.

This will be assessed based on his ability to communicate,

remain objective and transparent about processes that serve
himself and his brand.

Other Codes used:

29
 Masculinity, Femininity, Gender Roles, Call back to tradition/history, Mental Health,
Lexical choices of communication, Generalization.

3.3.3 Data Analysis

All items collected for the analysis have been analysed and stored via the Atlas.ti
software to ensure organizational validity. In the interest of processing the data efficiently,
software will be used in order to provide textual transcripts for the videos. These transcripts
will be analysed alongside the video format texts in order to reduce the negative effects
which computational and human errors would cause, reducing the consequence this could
have on the results. The transcripts cannot be analysed exclusively as the MCDA being
conducted will make use of the tools for analysis presented by Machin and Mayr (2012),
which include semiotic choices, presenting speech and speakers, representing people as well
as representing action. Additional tools that will be used includes Machin & Mayr’s (2012),
framework for representing actors and language. These facilitate the analysis of ‘gaze’ and
‘pose’ but also additional linguistic structures such as the use of honorifics, objectification,
suppression etc. (Machin & Mayr, 2012).
It is important to note that none of the content analysed was produced by Andrew
Tate and his team, but by third party actors. This was done due to this study focusing on
discourse, especially in the case of how Tate responds to alternative viewpoints as well as
how he defends his own. Furthermore, it eliminates the variable of the content being edited to
suit his own image and brand. This distinction is prevalent, especially when considering that
the results of this study will likely differ if focus was places on conduction an MCDA on
content produced by Tate and his team.

3.4 Positionality and Ethical Considerations

In order to address a qualitative research study of this nature it is important for the
positionality of the researcher to be addressed. Especially, when discussing my position as an
‘insider’ or an ‘outsider’ to the field of this study (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009). Before continuing
it is important to rectify the non-dichotomy of this perspective as Dwyer & Buckle (2009),

30
illustrate that it is rather based on a continuum where the researcher can occupy both insider
and outsider roles. This is especially due to how the research is an ongoing process of which
perceptions of the subject matter can change over time (Merriam et al., 2001). The paradox of
qualitative research can be described as “to be acutely tuned-in to the experiences and
meaning systems of others – to indwell – and at the same time to be aware of how one’s own
biases and preconceptions may be influencing what one is trying to understand” (Maykut &
Morehouse, 1994, p. 123). Regardless, this is a significant feat to accomplish especially since
I fall within the target audience of the influencers being analysed.
To further elaborate upon my position as the sole researcher of this study, I would
argue I fall between the insider and outsider perspectives. As mentioned, I fall within the
target audience as I carry some relation to the topics discussed and critics of society. Partly
due to my own research as well as my own social media behaviour. As a result, I am the
target of masculinity discourse as social media sites like Instagram, TikTok and YouTube
push the content towards me making it almost impossible to escape when I access these
services. However, I am also very much an outsider as I have never once felt compelled to
engage with this type of content nor seek out more niche groups online apart from satisfying
my own curiosity. Furthermore, apart from raising interesting existential questions I have
never found the content to influence my core values or impact the way I identify with myself.
I am also of the belief that one set of governing rules cannot be used to explain or generalize
human behaviour. For which these dialogues often try to do by referring to traditional paleo-
masculine norms. I also carry the bias of being harshly opposed to Red Pill ideals as I think it
fosters anti-human behaviour. Despite all of this my aim is to approach the data without bias
by treating Tate as a product designed to acquire vast amounts of attention, maintain it and
subsequently monetize it. A secondary aim of mine is to build a greater understanding of the
bigger picture of this debate and understand how human behaviour is changing in relation to
the communication technologies we have at our disposal.

31
4. Results
This section will detail the outcome of the MCDA analysis seeking to answer the
research question: How does Andrew Tate construct his personal branding in podcasts,
interviews and talk shows in order to compete within the attention economy? The results are
the product of the analysis of twelve podcast and talk show formats which feature Andrew
Tate. In order to contextualise the MCDA, the results section starts with an elaboration of the
main attention seeking constructs as described by Smith & Fischer (2021). These constructs
will be the governing framework for which this section is structured. This is due to how the
constructs facilitate ample means for to discuss a variety of factors allowing for a
contextualised output of results.

4.1 Attention seeking strategies

This section places focus on the attention seeking strategies constructed by Smith &
Fischer (2021) discussed in the methodology (See section 3.2.2 for operationalization of
assessed constructs). The strategies include disrupting, creating ante-narratives, orientating,
distilling and attuning to attentive audiences. Personal branding being an elusive concept by
nature as it entails a variety of factors such as impression management and self-presentation,
it essentially refers to how the actor positions and portrays themselves online (Gorbatov et
al., 2018; Scheidt et al., 2020). This includes factors such as strategies which signal attention
as well as strategies which communicate authenticity as these contribute to the construction
of the self-image of an online persona. As an example, an SMI cannot engage in disruptive
discourse without it reflecting on their image by communicating their personal disregard for
the repercussions. Regardless, following the MCDA, constructs disrupting, orientating,
creating ante-narratives and attuning to attentive audiences were found most prevalent. In
regards to distilling, which involves the use of attention-grabbing titles or clickbait; the
construct was less prevalent as this was an analysis of discourse as well as content that was
not produced by himself or his team. It is important to note however that every item analysed
had an attention seeking title which can be deemed as distilling including Andrew Tate’s
name in bold or ‘LAST INTERVIEW BEFORE ANDREW TATES ARREST’ as an
example.

32
4.1.1 Engaging in Polarizing Discourse and Disrupting
Disrupting refers to offering novel and counter-intuitive perspectives on events, issues
or objects and doing so in provocative ways (Smith & Fischer, 2021, p. 272). Being the most
prevalent strategy identified within the analysis, it is clear that engaging in polarizing
discourse is one of Tate’s main strategies for competing for attention. In line with much of
the criticism he has received some of his most polarising discussions concern that of women,
femininity, female promiscuity as well as the double standard of monogamous relationships.
Take for example in the Full Send podcast Tate makes the remark “It’s kind of unfortunate
because women are completely and utterly judged on how they look” (Full ReSend, 2022,
[00:46:27]). This is an example of Tate making an objectifying and generalized claim
followed by “[I]f you’re gonna be a feminist, at least get hot first” (Full ReSend, 2022,
[00:46:31]). This can be taken as an example of Tate purposively and directly antagonizing a
notoriously vocal community. Likely, as by inspiring action from this community, it will
serve to bring more attention to his content, both positive and negative. Furthermore, this can
also be seen as an example of attuning to attentive audiences as his target audience are likely
not feminists and would possibly find humour in this antagonization. Furthermore, his style
of argumentation is in line with TRP rhetoric as it is based in rationality suppressing
alternative subjective experiences coming from differing perspectives (Ging, 2017; Van
Valkenburgh, 2018).
Throughout the analysis it is evident that he also does this indirectly based on is
lexical choices of communication. Take for example “Anything violence related, women
should be nowhere near. So, I’ll give an example. My woman is very well trained that if it
goes off on the street, she needs to just run and scream” (Full ReSend, 2022, [00:48:22]). The
lexical choice of ‘my women’ and ‘trained’ indirectly conveys and connotes Tate’s
misogynistic views that men should have authority over women. These examples where taken
from a particularly androcentric discussion featuring Andrew Tate. However, in a separate
interview, Piers Morgan confronts Tate on these views with his defence being “I believe she
belongs to the man in marriage, correct” (Piers Morgan Uncensored, 2022, [00:10:41]).
Demonstrating passionate authenticity as he backs his claim with his genuine beliefs
regardless of the consequences such as being labelled a misogynist. With overlexicalization
of derogatory terms such as ‘bitch’ further emphasizing the disruptive nature of his rhetoric.
Tate maintains a defence of his views in that the message he carries is pulled out of context
and lost in translation.

33
 Secondly, he also holds disruptive views regarding the double standard of female
promiscuity and monogamy, where he calls back to tradition and history to defend his views.
This argumentative strategy of calling back to tradition and history was prevalent throughout
the analysis and is used in several of his arguments. This is displayed in a reoccurring
argument of his with “Every single man since the dawn of human time had more than one
woman. Every single king, every single emperor, every single sultan, every single conqueror.
Since the dawn of human time had more than one woman” (Stand Out TV, 2022, [00:15:57]).
Calling back to tradition and history is another argument used especially in Tate’s discussion
of gender as well as justifying that ‘high status’ males can justifiably cheat. The same
arguments are used to justify why it’s not the same for women with:

Females shouldn’t even want to cheat. The reason women can’t cheat is because there
is no way to ensure paternity if a females cheating. Modern science in and of itself,
just because you can now find out who the dad is, doesn’t undo 5000 years of human
evolution in which a female had to be loyal to one man (Stand Out TV, 2022,
[00:17:18]).

In a generalized discussion about gender roles claims such as these only hold true for
the audiences that believe or agree with the sentiment and Tate understands this.
Overlexicalization of absolutes such as ‘every’ further add to the persuasive element of
Tate’s rhetoric. The continued trend of basing his claims on personal belief further add to the
persuasive element of Tate’s rhetoric, denoting passionate authenticity creating emotional
appeal to his argument (Audrezet et al., 2020). This when coupled with disruptive takes such
as “I think 99% of the world’s problems would be solved if females walked through life with
their body count on their forehead” (Stand Out TV, 2022, [00:19:55]). Contribute to the
polarity of his personal brand as his rhetoric treads the line between satire and hate.
Furthermore, discourse such as this subscribes to TRP rhetoric due to how it associates
female promiscuity as a leading cause for several of the world’s issues further villainizing
females and feminization (Ging, 2017).
Taking into account these bold claims, the argument for his misogynistic ideals is an
easy one to make as well as the subsequent influence he could be having on the youth as a
result. However, it is important to also clarify the context of these discussions. Full ReSend
(2022), and Stand Out TV (2022), were particularly controversial interviews where his
discourse went unchallenged by the host. In regards to setting, Full ReSend (2022), was

34
androcentric where Tate was almost idealized for the controversy of his online persona, and
with everyone present in the discussion being male and aligned towards pro free-speech the
conversation was particularly flagrant. On the other hand, Stand Out TV (2022), followed the
format of a date with the host where it did not make sense to have a serious debate about
these issues. Furthermore, the host was not equipped to provide counter claims or arguments
which only served Tate’s image. In a separate interview with Samuel Leeds, a well acclaimed
real estate millionaire confronts Tate on his views on women as well as referring to them as
‘bitches.’ Tate starts by defending himself with “I don’t think I say the publicly, but I don’t
think I say that often” (Leeds, 2022, [1:42:20]). Contradicting himself as he uses the term in
almost every item assessed excluding items 1, 7 and 11. Leeds continues to compare Tate’s
online coaching company to his own, which targets both men and women equally. Tate
responds with “I truthfully believe that men and women are very different” followed by “I
don’t mean to be disparaging or insulting towards women, but I will say the truth” (Leeds,
2022, [1:43:09]). Here Tate demonstrates passionate authenticity as he bases his opinions off
of genuine beliefs, however it can be argued that the transparency of his response in the
Samuel Leeds interview is lacking. This is due to the contradicting nature of his argument,
especially when he makes generalized claims such as “They have no interest in world
conquest. They want to be comfortable. If you show a woman how to make $1000 an hour,
she’ll think. I can work 2 hours a week. If you show a man how to make $1000 an hour, he’ll
think I can make $18,000 a day” (Full ReSend, 2022, [01:07:55]). These contradictions go to
show that if Tate could be more transparent about his real views towards women without
negatively effecting his brand, he would likely do so.

4.1.2 Creating Ante-narratives

Ante-narratives consist of incorporating story elements such as settings, plot
fragments and characters, however unlike traditional narratives, they never reach a formal
narrative closure (Boje, 2001). Working as a method to grasp attention due to how
individuals have an affinity towards storytelling when compared to the consumption of
information (Mäkelä et al., 2021). This being the 2nd most common attention seeking strategy
used by Andrew Tate throughout the analysis. Two major reoccurring ante-narratives were
identified throughout the MCDA. One of the most common reoccurring ante-narratives
identified within Andrew Tate’s discourse is the matrix society we live in, much in line with

35
the red pill discourse discussed in section 2.3. The second most common ante-narrative found
is the failure and degradation of western society. In regards to the matrix, in the Samuel
Leeds interview Tate explains:

That their body is being used for what is important and they just distract their mind so
the body can stay alive long enough to give the machines what they want. And I
really, truly believe that’s a perfect analogy for the world today. We live in a world
where people are being extracted for their value, their physical value. Whether you
digging holes or carrying garbage or whatever, and your mind is constantly distracted
by garbage. It’s distracted by TV shows, concerts and clown world. I call it clown
world because it’s a never-ending circus (Leeds, 2022, [00:04:39]).

The word matrix appeared in almost every item analysed, excluding the Piers Morgan
interviews (Items 7 and 11), and this ante-narrative has become synonymous with Andrew
Tate’s brand. The notion of the matrix narrative in that of itself, implies a structural
opposition. This opposition takes place between people who are victims of the matrix who
live within the rules of the simulation, constantly distracted from real world societal issues as
well as the unfortunate realities of their own circumstances. On the other hand, people who
see through the matrix and are able to break free from it are afforded wealth, freedom and
true happiness. Tate exemplifies this notion with “I think that money buys freedom, and
freedom buys happiness” (Stand Out TV, 2022, [00:42:26]). Essentially pinning wealth
creation and money as the solution to existential concerns of freedom. For which it is
important to note that he monetizes the solutions for achieving this wealth and supposed
freedom. On the other hand, it is important that appropriate attention is given to the way Tate
articulates this message regarding the Matrix as well as his gaze and pose (See Figure 1
showing Tate’s body language when discussing the Matrix).

36
Figure 1: Leeds, 2022, [00:04:56]

In conversation with real estate entrepreneur Samuel Leeds, Tate posture and
mannerisms denote humility and respect towards the guest. It is clear he is not trying to be
disruptive and persuade his argument but instead articulates it in an understanding manner
both towards Leeds as the guest speaker but also his audience who may lack familiarity with
Tate. Furthermore, lexical choices such as “I really truly believe” further adds to the
emotional appeal of his argumentation connoting intrinsic motivations, denoting passionate
authenticity. Furthermore, Tate uses the ante-narrative of the Matrix to target men
specifically and address existential concerns of their disenfranchisement and supposed
growing lack of freedom. This is shown in a podcast with YMH studios where Tate explains
“when I talk about the Matrix, it primarily applies to men because men are the backbone of
the slave force. We always have been an always will be. And unfortunately, now, if you’re a
law-abiding man inside the Matrix, your future and the life that is laid out for you is nothing
but depressing.” (YMH Studios, 2021, [01:05:16]). Here we see Tate negatively
characterising what life may or may not look like for a lot of people. However, in doing so it
indirectly suppresses any alternative values especially those that are open to subjective
interpretation. As an example, people have different goals for what they would define as
successful or fulfilling. However, if you were to make generalized claims filtered through the
ideological lens of red pill, it allows for the simplification of complex concepts such as
systems of meaning and interpersonal values. This is due to the goals of TRP being binary

37
such as the acquisition of wealth and status which serve the argument especially when it is
based on logic and rationality. As an example, if it is possible to achieve your goals faster and
more efficiently by ignoring your feelings, than what reason do you have not to do so? This
argument eliminates subjectivity of the human experience which is an easy argument to
defend especially if you deem every counter to the claim as an excuse which Tate does
repeatedly. This same strategy of heavy generalization was the third most prevalent code
within the dataset and is a strategy used for a variety of topics including his views on women
and female promiscuity discussed previously. Furthermore, by mentioning that the majority
of people are constantly being distracted, it indirectly raises the question to Tate’s audience
of why he deserves their attention. Or, why his truth is the one that should be heard in post-
truth internet.
This is where the ante-narrative of the failing western society becomes relevant. In the
STRIKE IT BIG interview, Tate explains this reoccurring ante-narrative: “I think Western
society is failing. I think it’s breaking down in real time. I think by any metric you can
measure a society (…) Anything you can measure. We’re just losing. And on a long enough
timescale, I think places like England and the United States are going to be unliveable”
(STRIKE IT BIG, 2022, [00:53:43]). In doing so Tate creates a narrative and message to his
audience about what’s at stake if financial freedom and liberty is not achieved. A practice
that conveniently funnels his audience into his monetized courses and network. For example,
“The biggest problem with men today is that I think the world is becoming hyper
competitive. Most men are not aware in understanding how quickly there’s going to be a
genuine shift between those who have things and those who do not have things”
(JustPearlyThings, 2022, [00:05:49]). In doing so, Tate is appealing to a genuine fear people
are having due to a loss of trust in democracy which was elevated following the Covid 19
pandemic. Tate references Covid himself with “The reason I call it the Matrix is because a
false reality is being projected onto humanity, and they do that by controlling the narratives.
If they allowed people to have open and critical discussions about, let’s say, Covid at the
height of the pandemic, it would of never lasted three years” (Leeds, 2022, [00:04:39]).
Furthermore, this ante-narrative of life becoming harder in the future rather than easier,
reinforces other aspects of Tate’s rhetoric such as the way he conceptualizes masculinity. As
an example, the notion of the male existence being hypercompetitive is over-lexicalised
within Tate’s rhetoric and feeds into an ante-narrative Tate builds surrounding masculinity.
Where the core tenants are similar to that of red pill discourse (Ging, 2017), where focus is
placed on status, conquest and legacy. This is shown with “The masculine imperative and the

38
masculine perspective is you have to understand that life is war. It’s a war for the female you
want. It’s a competition. It’s a war for the money you want, it’s a war for the car you want.
It’s a war for status. Masculine life is war. If you’re a man that doesn’t view life as war,
you’re going to lose” (Stand Out TV, 2022, [00:32:22]). This notion of hyper competitivity
that Tate perpetuates is core to understanding red pill and androcentric discourse in general.
If red pill represents an ideological lens for which the world can be viewed, where the male
experience is chopped down to the pursuit of wealth, conquest, legacy, favourability with
women and status. Two major goals are achieved with this. Firstly, subjectivity is eroded
from the discussion in favour of logic, rationality and conservative values. Secondly, the
suppression of alternative experiences is achieved as their relevance is brought into question
in a hypercompetitive world. In doing so, Tate positions himself and his brand at the top of
the food chain, for what a high value/status man looks like, with his influence, stories and
constant flaunting of wealth and women being testament to his credibility as an influencer.
This notion is further denoted by the way Tate positions himself as a force for good
against the Matrix and censorship. Especially concerning how he engages in discourse
surrounding the consequences of his censorship on social media. He draws a comparison of
the general consensus towards social media companies and their tyrannical business models
towards pressure building behind a dam, positioning himself as the actor that will create the
final crack. This is shown with “I think if someone could pave the way and put a crack in the
dam by maintaining massive relevancy, despite of a ban and still having social media and
presence which is respected on other platforms, I think it’s going to do them significant
damage” (PBD Podcast, 2022, [00:12:42]).

4.1.3 Orientating
Orientating “refers to the practice of offering direct, well rationalized advice or
guidance to audience members” (Smith & Fischer, 2021, p.271). In essence orientating
encapsulates the SMI strategy of creating value for audience members by offering advice and
information that could potentially help them. Within this study orientating was the third most
common attention seeking strategy observed amongst Tate’s rhetoric. Regarding the content
for which Tate gives advice about it mainly concerns topics of masculinity, mental health,
wealth creation and becoming favourable with women, in line with his content being
predominantly androcentric, targeting male audiences. Firstly, masculinity and mental health

39
will be discussed as they were commonly coded adjacently within the dataset. One of the
more disruptive ways Tate engages with mental health issues is by combating the feminized
dialogue of men’s mental health which argues that men should be open with their emotions.
Tate combats this with “You know what happens when you tell men to just react to their
emotions? Anger. You have school shootings, you have rape, you have violence. That’s what
happens when you tell men to have no emotional control” (PBD Podcast, 2022, [01:04:51]).
This is much in line with his discourse surrounding masculinity and mental health where he
argues that “I think that the most dangerous men on Earth are the weak men” (PBD Podcast,
2022, [01:04:51]). Another disruptive take Tate presents are his views towards clinical
depression and why he does not believe it. In the PBD podcast Tate explains and attempts to
debunk one of the main criticisms made towards him regarding his views on mental health:

Their little quote is they say, you said depression isn’t real. What about the men who
kill themselves? You don’t care about men’s mental health. We’ve already discussed
how I care more about men’s mental health than these people who pretend they do.
That’s the first thing. I didn’t say depression isn’t real. I said feeling depressed is real.
But the idea that depression is going to strike you in your mind and there’s nothing
you can do about it. I think that is promoting helplessness amongst depressed people,
and that’s the reason why they kill themselves (PBD Podcast, 2022, [01:58:30]).

In essence, this message is core towards Tate’s views on mental health and sets the
foundation of which he advises his audience on improving their circumstances. He brings a
disruptive point of view that criticizes current mental health discourse in the way that it
distinguishes an individual’s mental health from their real-life circumstances. He further
emphasizes this point, specifically targeting men, with “Stop defending this. And they’re
defending this because it is a cure all excuse. Depression and sadness is a cure all excuse for
men to use for failure” (PBD Podcast, 2022, [01:58:30]). He bases this notion on the ideas of
positive affirmation with “I refuse to believe in things that take power away from me. I’m
only going to construct a mental model that allows me to be as powerful as possible” (PBD
Podcast, 2022, [01:58:30]). In the same podcast one of the guest speakers summarises Tate’s
views on mental health with “Here’s what I’ve heard from you so far. Personal responsibility
straight up. And number two, positive affirmation. I don’t want negativity in my life. I don’t
want depression around me. I don’t want weakness around me. I want to be the best person I
can be and take full responsibility for that” (PBD Podcast, 2022, [01:58:30]). Tate goes on to

40
agree with the sentiment. Whilst this messaging is unique and could be construed as positive
advice and helpful for some, it follows the same line of argumentation as his other topics.
This strategy being the heavy use of generalized points which are filtered through his own
ideological lens and beliefs. Which further feed his previously discussed ante-narratives of
masculinity and competitivity.

4.1.4 Attuning to Attentive audiences

Attuning to attentive audiences refers to the SMIs ability to observe audiences and
target those who demonstrate ‘attention capacity’ (Smith & Fischer, 2021). As illustrated in
table 3, due to the mode of study for this analysis being discourse, we cannot assume what
went into the construction of Tate’s strategy and who specifically he has targeted. However,
we can analyse specifically the way he refers and represents groups of people and postures an
‘Us – Them’ division which allows us to deduct which audiences he is appealing to. We also
see this with how he positions himself and his message. In item 11, Tate explains:

They feel disenfranchised with the media machine and the things they’re supposed to
believe. They don’t feel an affinity with the educational system or the culture. And
they look at a person like me who stands up and sees the things that many young men
think. I haven’t put a magical spell on the world. The fact that people like what I say
means that they agree with me. Deep inside. They may be afraid to say it themselves,
but I am seen as a bastion of free speech and a bastion of masculinity as a whole,
because a lot of men are largely forgotten about. (Piers Morgan Uncensored, 2022,
[00:05:00]).

Here we seen an example of how Tate frames himself and his message as a bastion of
free speech and masculinity. More specifically we see how he specifically speaks to young
men who feel disenfranchised. In doing so he also frames the ‘media machine’ as the culprit
for this disenfranchisement, of which he often refers to as the Matrix. Furthermore, the theme
of speaking to young men who feel disenfranchised is common throughout Tate’s discourse.
In this example he refers to these men as ‘largely forgotten.’ He expresses this notion in other
ways such as “So for women to come along and pretend they give a **** about the fact that
most men are basically invisible” (Stand Out TV, 2022, [00:39:56]). Here Tate is shown

41
again speaking to disenfranchised young men characterizing them as ‘invisible.’ However,
frames women responsible in part, for the issue, in line with TRP rhetoric blaming
feminization for male disenfranchisement (Ging, 2017).
Tate continues this trend of speaking to disenfranchised men by defining status and
respect as attributes men need in order to be ‘visible’ by further comparing generalizations of
the male and female experience. Engaging in this debate in the Stand Out TV interview with:

“There is not a female on the planet who is invisible today. You can be a four,
overweight, fat and still go to the club and get attention. 99% of men go to the club
and nobody even ****** talks to them. If they try and talk to a girl, they get blanked,
ignored and told to **** off. Most man are absolutely and utterly invisible, this is the
truth about masculinity” (Stand Out TV, 2022, [00:39:56]).

Here Tate is making a point about how it is a necessity for men to acquire status in
order to be recognised, however completely suppresses and makes generalized claims about
the female experience. However, body language and tone that Tate expresses denote
confidence and conviction which could be indicative of his views being intrinsically
motivated connoting passionate authenticity (Audrezet et al., 2022). Doing so can work
towards generating audience appeal especially towards individuals who agree to a certain
extent with his views regardless of how controversial they are. This is exaggerated by the
content of his argument which denotes a genuine care he has for men who feel
disenfranchised. Especially concerning how passionately defending his views in this
disruptive manner can make appeals to emotion rather than reason (See figure 4.2 as an
example).

42
Figure 2: Stand Out TV, 2022, [00:40:18]

In the above figure we can see how Tate’s passionate authenticity is connoted through
his body language and expressions, as if he is angry about the circumstance men are dealing
with. Doing so arguably further polarizes audience members to his message as those who
don’t agree may perceive him as threatening. However, it also works to create emotional
appeal towards audience members who resonate with his message. In doing so Tate attunes
his message towards young men who feel disenfranchised whilst also following the TRP
formula of saying that women and feminization are to blame.
Tate also attunes his message politically. Whilst describing himself as apolitical due
to how he does not trust any government body he makes this point when confronted on his
conservative views. “I think that it is based in the natural. I think it’s a natural tendency to be
conservatively minded if you are masculine and also if you are competent. I feel like a lot of
my traditional masculine values just come from my respect in myself and my confidence in
myself in dangerous situations” (PBD Podcast, 2022, [03:46:47]). Here simply by aligning
competence and masculinity with conservative values, Tate attunes his message to an
audience who hold conservative masculine values that seek competence in themselves or
others, as he subscribes competence as a reward for doing so.

43
 Another example where Tate attunes to attentive audiences is by engaging in
disrupting discourse surrounding controversial topics such as censorship and COVID 19.
With regards to his views on censorship, in item 6 Tate elaborates:

But the reason they censor and delete one entire side of the argument, then you're only
left with their version of reality, they’re projected reality. And they do that with every
subject. There are so many subjects you can't have an open discussion on, and if they
only control, they delete all of one side and only keep one side there, then that's a
false paradigm. It's a false reality. And that's what they're doing to convince people to
act in certain ways and do certain things which are not necessarily in their best
interest or necessarily true (Leeds, 2022, [00:04:39]).

During a discussion of COVID 19, Tate targets social media companies for
contributing to the lies and misinformation that was spread whilst also hinting towards them
having a sinister agenda. This can be taken as an example of Tate participating in ‘truth
games’ as the points he is making are backed by logical rather than objective reasoning
(Cosentino, 2020). Furthermore, by engaging in disruptive areas of discourse, doing so can
take advantage of igniting a very vocal minority and appeal to audience members who exhibit
the same school of thought. Another benefit of doing so is the ante-narrative he constructs
around the social media companies and the Matrix feed other aspects of his argument, such as
his views towards mental health discourse. Especially concerning the feminization of mental
health discourse where men are told to be emotional rather than stoic, which he and other
actors in male self-help and manosphere discourse perpetuate. Another way this ante-
narrative serves his message is that it further villainizes Matrix actors of which he positions
himself as the protagonist to combat against.
By engaging in disruptive discussion on a variety of topics it produces an abundance
of content which can be used to serve and promote his image and message. For example,
from what has already been analysed it is clear Tate is a formidable character in open debates
and articulates himself well around a variety of different topics. Taking is previous quote on
censorship as an example, it can be clipped and shortened to suit the TikTok format and
target audience members with interest in this niche. Doing so works to generate audience
appeal and also target a wider demographic with his message.

44
4.1.5 Encouraging Amplification and Distilling
Encouraging amplification is an attention seeking strategy that refers to the SMIs
ability to “encourage audience members to engage in actions that will help attract further
attention” (Smith & Fischer, 2021, p. 269). This strategy was not found prevalent throughout
the analysis. This is due to the data procured for this analysis being that of third-party content
where Tate is featured as a guest. Therefore, it is likely that there are less opportunities for
Tate to directly speak to his audience as his motivations may be more orientated towards
engaging audience members that fall out of the scope of his fandom. Making strategies such
as disrupting, orientating and creating ante-narratives more prevalent. However, there is an
argument to be made for how Tate indirectly encourages amplification. This is made possible
by his affiliate marketing program which offers users of his online course commission for
each new customer brought to the platform with their personalised link which has since been
closed (Das, 2022). A post in the hustler’s university discord discusses the closure of the
programme stating that although it was successful it had many issues with the main being that
Tate’s content had been “used out of context and in bad taste by many students desperate to
get attention to their profiles” (Das, 2022). Regardless, the programme was closed August
2022, therefore content where he encourages users to join his online course after the fact,
cannot be deemed as indirectly encouraging amplification. The same cannot be said for
content posted before that. Despite this, directly encouraging his audiences to amplify his
content is not something he was observed doing within the dataset.
Similarly, distilling was also not a predominant strategy found throughout the
analysis. Distilling refers to the creation of headlines or titles that successfully signal that a
post has audience relevant content (Smith & Fischer, 2021). However, due to the content
assessed not being produced by Tate or his team, distilling was not a strategy which was
identified as Tate using himself. It is worth noting that every item analysis still had features
of distilling in the title or thumbnail of the video with Andrew Tate’s name in bold and with
titles such as ‘last interview before Tate’s arrest.’

45
5. Discussion and Conclusion
I would argue that the attention economy is facilitating the dissemination of
alternative beliefs and truths into the mainstream. With SMIs taking advantage of audiences
by participating in truth games with the circulation of controversial discourse (Van Dijk,
2011). It can be further argued that one of the most significant culprits to have taken
advantage of this system for their own gain has been Andrew Tate. In line with previous
research, the most prevalent attention seeking strategies used by Tate identified were the
strategies most aligned with the production of compelling content including disrupting,
constructing ante-narratives, orientating and attuning to attentive audiences (Smith & Fischer,
2021). Whilst distilling falls under these categories, it was not found prevalent due to reasons
previously mentioned.
In regards to the strategy Tate gained notoriety for, especially regarding his views
towards women, disrupting was the most prevalent strategy identified. Whilst the results
mostly discussed disrupting in the context of his views on women and misogyny, it can be
argued that he practices this strategy in various aspects of discussion including the Matrix
society, mental health and masculinity. Where it is likely he could engage in these
discussions in a less provocative manner if he chose to. Instead, he opts for expressing his
views in novel, counter-intuitive and often abrasive ways with the goal to entertain, provoke
and disrupt (Smith & Fischer, 2021). An interesting finding was the interplay this strategy of
disruption has with communicating perceptions of authenticity. To elaborate, Tate has no
affiliations with third-party organizations or companies that he directly expresses within his
communications. This eliminates the factor of third-party agendas negatively effecting
perceptions of transparent authenticity, as he chooses to forgo them or completely avoid their
disclosure (Audrezet et al., 2020). Furthermore, he positions his novel and disruptive views
within his genuine beliefs, showing his views are intrinsically motivated connoting
passionate authenticity (Audrezet et al., 2020). Whilst he has no partnerships, Tate and his
team advertise their own solutions to the issues at hand. This being his online coaching
school The Real World and his private male-only network The War Room. For which, like
any product/service sold in OAEs is sold based on strategies which appeal to emotion rather
than objectivity. This can be argued as manipulation, since manipulators make others believe
or do things that are in the best interest of the manipulator, and against the best interested of
the manipulated (Van Dijk, 2006).
Another aspect that compounds this perception of passionate authenticity is his use of
ante-narratives and storytelling. By expressing views and constructing narratives based on

46
personal experiences, it contributes to post-truthfulness in the public sphere as focus is placed
on experientiality, representativeness and normativity (Mäkelä et al., 2021). This is due to
how the personal experiences he uses to justify his beliefs are protected from falsification.
Secondly, the way he positions himself as a protagonist standing up for disenfranchised men
and combatting censorship, cements his ideas in the consensus of ‘affective publics.’
Affective publics being the audience of men who feel disenfranchised, of which he attunes
his content towards. It is this same affective consensus established amongst his audience that
normalizes the stories he tells in favour of a ‘greater purpose’ being his fight against the
Matrix and feminization. This ‘greater purpose’ works to eclipse well founded criticism
towards his polarising ideas such as his misogynistic views in the eyes of his audience
(Mäkelä et al., 2021).
Another problematic notion is the way Tate positions himself as a public intellectual.
Despite addressing the fact that he is not expert on topics such as gender, history and politics
he still engages in generalized, provocative and orientating discourse around these topics.
Similarly, to other controversial figures such as Jordan Peterson, Tate’s discourse is
instrumental in determining what information his followers should or should not receive.
Which places Tate as an actor who does not brand themselves as a public intellectual, but by
definition can be classified as one (van de Ven & van Gemert, 2020). Public intellectuals
hold significant relevance in shaping discourse especially in the context of post-truth and
times of information overload. This is due to how they operate in a way that filters
information for their audience (van de Ven & van Gemert, 2020). As argued by van de Ven
& van Gemert (2020), when public intellectuals such as Peterson engage in discourse that
readers can fail to grasp the meaning of, they often judge them profound creating the ‘Guru
Effect.’ I would argue that Tate takes an alternative approach to Peterson whilst also taking
advantage of post-truth, opting for a strategy of emotional appeal making use of narrative
storytelling to generate an affective consensus behind his more traditional views (Mäkelä et
al., 2021). This is due to the way Tate articulates himself in a digestible manner allowing his
message and views to appeal to a wider audience. An alternative characterisation of this is
Tate using compelling storytelling to usurp the place of empirical facts in order to create an
alternative shared reality amongst his audience (Kraatila, 2019). This when coupled with his
ability to orientate on topics such as becoming favourable with women, masculinity, mental
health and wealth creation allows him to attune his message to an audience who share these
conservative values as well as disdain for the Matrix society we supposedly live in.

47
 Where this notion becomes problematic is when it reaches a vulnerable audience,
shaping their values, thus having an indoctrinating and sometimes a radicalizing effect. This
is where the ambiguous nature of the Matrix red pill argument becomes concerning especially
considering how the argument can be ideologically appropriated to serve different causes
(Marwick & Lewis, 2017; Ging, 2017). Firstly, the red pill argument raises a distinct binary
choice of identity to the audience. Do you take the blue pill, numbing yourself to the
simulation, living within the paradigm which mainstream media perpetuates. Or instead, do
you take the red pill, arising out of the simulation and reclaiming your autonomy for dictating
your own reality? Marwick and Lewis (2017), equate the red-pilling argument to
consciousness-raising, or the leftist argument of becoming ‘woke.’ This is of significant
ideological relevance as the red pill argument can be appropriated to serve the interests of the
group whilst also articulating relationships with more dominant groups (Van Dijk, 2011). As
an example, people who succumb to the red pill ideology may believe they are survivors of
the Matrix with everyone else being victims of it. Furthermore, the red pill ideology does not
just serve the interests of the group but also that of the individual. This is due to how it serves
base human gratifications of esteem, especially when analysed through the lens of
contemporary uses and gratification theory (Ruggiero, 2000). This is where the mainstream
dissemination of ideology has an indoctrinating effect, as users are initially sold on the idea
based on how it reacts to their individual values. It is only after this that the ideology can
become strengthened through factors such as group think as the individual must take action to
enter the group in the first place (Van Dijk, 2011).
In conclusion, it is clear that Andrew Tate and his team had a plan to attract attention
as fast as possible and executed it efficiently. This was done via incorporating different
strategies mainly concerning disrupting, attuning to attentive audiences, creating ante-
narratives and orientating, that work together to create a product worthy of attention.
Especially when the product at hand is Andrew Tate who is well articulated and is able to
successfully communicate an authentic image, coupled with a skillset that serves compelling
storytelling. This in short, being the first factor, which facilitates his monumental success in
competing for attention in OAEs. The second factor facilitating his success is the increasing
prevalence of post-truth and the way that OAEs facilitate its development. If an environment
where emotional appeal out ways objective reality did not exist, Tate’s success would not
have been possible. This is corroborated by the fact that when social media companies
censored him, it only fuelled his credibility and position as a ‘force for good’ against the

48
Matrix. Which begs the question if Andrew Tate and the potential negative influence he has
is the problem, or is he just a product of attention economy he competes in?
This paper was a qualitative exploration into the factors contributing to Andrew
Tate’s success and ability to compete within OAEs. Steps were taken to contextualise this
MCDA within the paradigm of post-truth and the relationship this has in effecting the market
of OAEs. This was done so to allow for a contextualised assessment of how Tate’s message
is constructed in order to successfully compete for attention in OAEs. Whilst shedding light
on the current post-truth era and the turbulence it has created in current discourse. This is of
societal significance as if left unaddressed the influence social media influencers have will
likely have consequences that are yet to be seen, on impressionable individuals that are
unable to distinguish the good from bad in Tate’s message. (Marwick & Lewis, 2017; Ging,
2017; van de Ven & van Gemert, 2020). This is an area requiring further academic study
especially concerning the extent to which users are influenced by the information they
consume online. This could shed light on potential solutions towards protecting the youth.
In addition, a plausible framework for person branding has yet to be formulated
(Gorbatov et al., 2018; Scheidt et al., 2020). This paper attempted to solve this by combining
the works of respective scholars including frameworks for attention seeking and authenticity
management strategies combined with personal branding two personal branding meta studies
(Audrezet et al., 2020; Gorbatov et al., 2018; Scheidt et al., 2020; Smith & Fischer, 2021).
This was done so in an attempt to address the gap in academic research and potentially
contribute to a solution of a new personal branding framework. Especially if proper
consideration is given to SMIs participation in ‘truth games’ (Cosentino, 2020). This is due
to a lack of research contributing to how SMIs, especially those who brand themselves as
public intellectuals’, appropriate political discourses in order to attune their messages towards
what their targeted audience values. Subsequently growing their audience by shaping the
values of others through means of emotional appeal and manipulation (Mäkelä et al., 2021;
Marwick & Lewis, 2017; Van Dijk, 2006; Van Dijk, 2011).
This study took steps towards standardising the MCDA and eliminating bias. Whilst
minimizing the risk of subjectivity and bias influencing the results, it does not negate the risk
entirely. This study attempted to combat this by viewing Tate as a product designed to
acquire vast amounts of attention, influence, engagement and monetize it effectively.
Furthermore, this study only assessed third-party content featuring Tate engaging in
discourse and not content produced by himself or his team. This was done purposefully but is
still worth mentioning as the results may vary if the content assessed was produced by Tate

49
and his team. Regardless, this does not undermine the necessity of further qualitative research
to be done regarding the way we consume information within the context of post truth and
economies of attention. Furthermore, whilst this study discusses the potential influence of
Tate’s rhetoric, these conclusions cannot be generalized as this study did not assess
participants or the extent which his content may influence them. This being a direction for
further qualitative research where participants belonging to Tate’s audience can be
interviewed in order to better understand how his messages are perceived. Especially
concerning the increasing prevalence of public intellectuals and their ability to filter
information in times of information overload and post-truth. It is becoming more apparent to
be able to gauge the influence this content could have on audiences with varying degrees of
vulnerability. This may bring nuanced results in the field of critical thinking, more
specifically, educating it effectively in order to counter-act the negative consequences of
post-truth.

50
 References

Audrezet, A., De Kerviler, G., & Moulard, J. G. (2020). Authenticity under threat: When
social media influencers need to go beyond self-presentation. Journal of Business
Research, 117, 557-569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.008
Anti-Defamation League. (2019). ADL’s never Is Now 2019 | ADL International Leadership
Award Presented to Sacha Baron Cohen [YouTube Video]. In YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM
Artsy, A. (2023, January 10). Why millions of men admire internet misogynist Andrew Tate.
Vox; Vox. https://www.vox.com/culture/2023/1/10/23547393/andrew-tate-toxic-
masculinity-qa
Beck, J. C., & Davenport, T. H. (2001). The attention economy: understanding the New
Currency of business. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Pres.
Berman, R., & Katona, Z. (2020). Curation algorithms and filter bubbles in social
networks. Marketing Science, 39(2), 296-316. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2019.1208
Boje, D. (2001). Narrative methods for organizational & communication research. Narrative
Methods for Organizational & Communication Research, 1-160.
Boler, M., & Davis, E. (2018). The affective politics of the “post-truth” era: Feeling rules and
networked subjectivity. Emotion, Space and Society, 27, 75–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2018.03.002
Bowker, N. I. (2001, February). Understanding online communities through multiple
methodologies combined under a postmodern research endeavour. In Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 2, No. 1).
Brooks, G., Drenten, J., & Piskorski, M. J. (2021). Influencer celebrification: How Social
Media Influencers Acquire Celebrity Capital. Journal of Advertising, 50(5), 528–547.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1977737
Bueno, C. C. (2016). The attention economy: labour, time and power in cognitive capitalism.
Rowman & Littlefield.
“Censorship Is Never the Answer”: Influencers Flock to Twitter Over Ban on “Menace”
Worth $350 Million. (2022, August 20). EssentiallySports.
https://www.essentiallysports.com/boxing-news-censorship-is-never-the-answer-
influencers-flock-to-twitter-over-wild-ban-on-andrew-tate/

51
Chomanski, B. (2022). Mental integrity in the Attention Economy: in Search of the Right to
Attention. Neuroethics, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09514-x
CİBAROĞLU, M. O. (2019). Post-truth in social media. Arşiv Dünyası, 6(2), 87-99.
Cobratate | Live What You Dream. (2023). Cobratate.com. https://cobratate.com/
Copland, S. (2022). On the bad men of the manosphere. Meanjin, 81(4), 101-107.
Cosentino, G. (2020). Social media and the post-truth world order. Palgrave Pivot.
Das, S. (2022, August 20). Andrew Tate: money-making scheme for fans of “extreme
misogynist” closes. The Guardian; The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/aug/20/andrew-tate-money-making-scheme-
for-fans-of-extreme-misogynist-closes
De Feis, G. L., Grunewald, D., & De Feis, G. N. (2016). International trade theory of hyper-
globalization and hyper-information flow conceived. International Journal of
Business & Applied Sciences, 5(1), 22-28.
De Jans, S., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2018). How an advertising disclosure alerts
young adolescents to sponsored vlogs: The moderating role of a peer-based
advertising literacy intervention through an informational vlog. Journal of
Advertising, 47(4), 309-325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2018.1539363
Dodgson, L., & Dawson, B. (2023, January 29). Teachers and parents talk about Andrew
Tate’s influence on kids. Business Insider; Insider.
https://www.businessinsider.com/teachers-and-parents-talk-about-andrew-tates-
influence-on-kids-2023-1?international=true&r=US&IR=T
Dwyer, S. C., & Buckle, J. L. (2009). The space between: On being an insider-outsider in
qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 54-63. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069090080010
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis. The Routledge handbook of discourse
analysis (pp. 9-20). Routledge.
Fournier, S., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2019). Putting the person back in person-brands:
Understanding and managing the two-bodied brand. Journal of Marketing
Research, 56(4), 602-619. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224371983065
Gillen, J., & Petersen, A. (2005). Discourse analysis. Research methods in the social
sciences, 146, 53.
Ging, D. (2019). Alphas, betas, and incels: Theorizing the masculinities of the
manosphere. Men and masculinities, 22(4), 638-657. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X17706401

52
Gorbatov, S., Khapova, S. N., & Lysova, E. I. (2018). Personal Branding: Interdisciplinary
Systematic Review and Research Agenda. Frontiers in Psychology, 9.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02238
Gutmann, M. C. (1997). Trafficking in men: The anthropology of masculinity. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 385-409. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.385
Harsin, J. (2015). Regimes of posttruth, postpolitics, and attention
economies. Communication, Culture & Critique, 8(2), 327-333. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/cccr.12097
Hauser, E. (2011). Generalization: A practice of situated categorization in talk. Human
Studies, 34, 183-198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9184-y
Jaye, C. (2016) The Red Pill [Film] Jaye Bird Productions
Jensen Schau, H., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). We are what we post? Self-presentation in personal
web space. Journal of consumer research, 30(3), 385-404. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1086/378616
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Puig, B. (2022). Educating critical citizens to face post-truth:
The time is now. In Critical Thinking in Biology and Environmental Education:
Facing Challenges in a Post-Truth World (pp. 3-19). Cham: Springer International
Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92006-7_1
Kiesling, S. F. (2001). " Now I Gotta Watch What I Say": Shifting Constructions of
Masculinity in Discourse. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 11(2), 250-273. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2001.11.2.250
Kiesling, S. F. (2005). Homosocial desire in men's talk: Balancing and re-creating cultural
discourses of masculinity. Language in Society, 34(5), 695-726. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404505050268
Kraatila, E. (2019). Conspicuous fabrications: Speculative fiction as a tool for confronting the
post-truth discourse. Narrative Inquiry, 29(2), 418-433. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.19016.kra
Kubler, K. (2023). Influencers and the attention economy: the meaning and management of
attention on Instagram. Journal of Marketing Management, 1-17. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2022.2157864
Lair, D. J., Sullivan, K., & Cheney, G. (2005). Marketization and the recasting of the
professional self: The rhetoric and ethics of personal branding. Management

53
 communication quarterly, 18(3), 307-343. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318904270744
Lee, M. T., & Theokary, C. (2021). The superstar social media influencer: Exploiting
linguistic style and emotional contagion over content?. Journal of Business
Research, 132, 860-871. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.014
Leroy, F., Brengman, M., Ryckbosch, W., & Scholliers, P. (2018). Meat in the post-truth era:
Mass media discourses on health and disease in the attention economy. Appetite, 125,
345–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.02.028
Lilly, M. (2016). 'The World is Not a Safe Place for Men': The Representational Politics Of
The Manosphere (Doctoral dissertation, Université d'Ottawa/University of Ottawa).
Machin, D. & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis. A multimodal
introduction. London: Sage (p. 49-56).
Mautner, G., Myers, G., Gruber, H., & Abell, J. (2017). Qualitative discourse analysis in the
social sciences. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Mäkelä, M., Björninen, S., Karttunen, L., Nurminen, M., Raipola, J., & Rantanen, T. (2021).
Dangers of Narrative: A Critical Approach to Narratives of Personal Experience in
Contemporary Story Economy. Narrative, 29(2), 139–159.
https://doi.org/10.1353/nar.2021.0009
Marche, S. (2016, April 14). Swallowing the Red Pill: a journey to the heart of modern
misogyny. The Guardian; The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/14/the-red-pill-reddit-modern-
misogyny-manosphere-men
Marwick, A., & Lewis, R. (2017). Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online.
https://datasociety.net/wp-
content/uploads/2017/05/DataAndSociety_MediaManipulationAndDisinformationOnli
ne-1.pdf
Mautner, G., Myers, G., Gruber, H., & Abell, J. (2017). Qualitative discourse analysis in the
social sciences. Bloomsbury Publishing.
McIntyre, L. (2018). Post-truth. MIt Press.
Merriam, S. B., Johnson-Bailey, J., Lee, M. Y., Kee, Y., Ntseane, G., & Muhamad, M.
(2001). Power and positionality: Negotiating insider/outsider status within and across
cultures. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20(5), 405-416.
Merriam, S. B. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. Qualitative research in practice:
Examples for discussion and analysis, 1(1), 1-17.

54
 Messner, M. (2016). Forks in the road of men’s gender politics: Men’s rights vs feminist
allies. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 5(2), 6. DOI:
http://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i2.301
Mountford, J. B. (2018). Topic modelling the red pill. Social Sciences, 7(3), 42. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7030042
Munsch, C. L., & Gruys, K. (2018). What threatens, defines: Tracing the symbolic
boundaries of contemporary masculinity. Sex Roles, 79(7), 375-392. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0878-0
Maykut, P. S., & Morehouse, R. E. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A Philosophic
and Practical Guide (Vol. 6). Psychology Press.
Nicol, A. (2022, September 4). Andrew Tate and the Attention Economy. Bath Time
Magazine. https://unibathtime.co.uk/2022/09/04/andrew-tate-and-the-attention-
economy/
Oxford Word of the Year 2016 | Oxford Languages. (2016). Oup.com.
https://languages.oup.com/word-of-the-year/2016/
Parmentier, M. A., Fischer, E., & Reuber, A. R. (2013). Positioning person brands in
established organizational fields. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41,
373-387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-012-0309-2
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2016). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak &
M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (3rd edition) (pp. 23-61).
Ribeiro, M. H., Blackburn, J., Bradlyn, B., De Cristofaro, E., Stringhini, G., Long, S., ... &
Zannettou, S. (2021, May). The evolution of the manosphere across the web.
Richardson, D. (2008). Conceptualising gender. Introducing Gender and Women’s Studies, 3.
Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass
communication & society, 3(1), 3-37. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_02
r/exredpill. (2023). Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/exredpill/
Salgado, S. (2018). Online media impact on politics. Views on post-truth politics and post-
postmodernism. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 14(3), 317-331.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.14.3.317_1
Schau, H. J., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). We are what we post. Self-presentation in Personal
Webspace, 30(3), 385-404. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/378616

55
 Scheidt, S., Gelhard, C., & Henseler, J. (2020). Old practice, but young research field: A
systematic bibliographic review of personal branding. Frontiers in psychology, 11,
1809. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01809
Smith, A. N., & Fischer, E. (2021). Pay attention, please! Person brand building in organized
online attention economies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(2), 258-
279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00736-0
Sonesson, G. (1998). Denotation and connotation. Encyclopedia of semiotics, 187-89.
Salomon, M. (2006). Hyper-informationalism: A study of its impact and consequences.
Stetsenko, A., & Arievitch, I. (1997). Constructing and deconstructing the self: Comparing
post-Vygotskian and discourse-based versions of social constructivism. Mind,
Culture, and Activity, 4(3), 159-172. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0403_3
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Femininity/masculinity. Encyclopedia of sociology, 2, 997-
1005.
Sugiura, L. (2023, January 25). Andrew Tate: research has long shown how feminist progress
is always followed by a misogynistic backlash. The Conversation.
https://theconversation.com/andrew-tate-research-has-long-shown-how-feminist-
progress-is-always-followed-by-a-misogynistic-backlash-197433
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & society, 17(3), 359-383.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250
Van Dijk, T. A. (2011). Discourse and ideology. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary
introduction, 379-407.
Van Valkenburgh, S. P. (2021). Digesting the red pill: Masculinity and neoliberalism in the
manosphere. Men and Masculinities, 24(1), 84-103. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X188161
Van de Ven, I., & Van Gemert, T. (2022). Filter bubbles and guru effects: Jordan B. Peterson
as a public intellectual in the attention economy. Celebrity Studies, 13(3), 289-307.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2020.1845966

Wang, C., Platow, M. J., & Newman, E. J. (2022). There is an ‘i’in truth: How salient
identities shape dynamic perceptions of truth. European Journal of Social
Psychology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2909
Zak, P. J. (2014). Why your brain loves good storytelling. Harvard business review, 28, 1-5.

56