Aren't many channels funded by the companies they pretend to get sponsorship from? If you look at the OSINT and Natsec adjacent topics there are many who have had the same sponsor for years: ground.news ... many pretend that they are indie content creators when they are just the marketing / growth hacking arm of the sponsor.

Examples: Caspian report, Warfronts, Geopolitics decoded, ...

Many of them (the content creator) are even located in the same city.

▲

slightwinder 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> many pretend that they are indie content creators when they are just the marketing / growth hacking arm of the sponsor.

Just curious, but can't they be both?

I don't know those channels. The one I regularly see are very diverse in their partners, and usually the content is unrelated to the promotions. But overall those promotions are negotiated based on viewer counts, and at a certain size, they are more valuable than earnings from ads.

	▲	awaythrow999 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Absolutely can be both. And often they make it clear: like cappello army does. But then there are the more shady ones where it's less transparent

▲

humpty-d 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Any credible evidence that they get enough money from the sponsorships to be considered fully funded by them? Or that ground news uses influence over these channels?

I can throw a dart and hit a random podcast that has been sponsored by blue chew for years, but that doesn't mean said podcast is funded by them or bends to their whims.

IMO your comment is pure conspiracy theory.

	▲	awaythrow999 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Why would thet be a conspiracy theory. The public facing guy who is behind Warfronts has 4 other channels that peddle content unrelated to natsec/warfare. If you follow "cappy army" and the drama he went through at "task and purpose" his former employer it becomes pretty clear that there are entire media companies behind what looks like "a single hobbyist content creator expat living in Prague" ...