Here's the prediction. And I'm going to make a bold prediction here. The media companies are gonna you know, they're obviously picking a side. They obviously want subscription. Now they're dealing with Substack clubhouse podcasts all chipping away. I think what's going to happen is you're going to see media brands built around certain podcasts, and they're going to work subject first. In other words, the subject of the story are going to create media properties. So if you look at what we've done with All in, and obviously I have this week in startups, if we did the Friedberg on Science podcast and it was just Friedberg explaining a science topic, and then then we did Chamath on public markets. And then we did sacks on, you know, alt right conspiracy theories. And we just had five pods now. Or it could be something else, I don't know guns, you know. Whatever I don't know pro-life I don't know what taxes into. But you know, no sacks could do something on SaaS. So sacks on SaaS, Freeburg on science, Chamath on thirst traps this week in startups, then we have all in. That's five, five full pods of an hour and a half each. If each of you did your own pod and I have my pod and we made the All in network, the All in News network, I guarantee you we would be within five years, you know, right up there with CNN and MSNBC.View on YouTube
Key points:
-
Time window not over yet. The statement was made in an episode published on 6 February 2021. The five‑year horizon therefore runs until around 6 February 2026. As of today (30 November 2025), that window has not expired, so any verdict is technically premature.
-
The antecedent hasn’t really happened. Jason’s prediction was conditional: if they created an “All‑In Network” of roughly five subject‑focused podcasts (Friedberg on science, Sacks on SaaS, Chamath on public markets, plus All‑In and This Week in Startups), then that network would be “right up there with CNN and MSNBC” within five years. In practice, they have one flagship All‑In podcast plus summits and branded products (e.g., All‑In Summit, All‑In Tequila), not a suite of 4–5 separate recurring subject‑vertical shows under an “All‑In Network” banner.(en.wikipedia.org) Because the specific multi‑show network he described was never built, the conditional is hard to evaluate directly.
-
All‑In is influential but far smaller than CNN/MSNBC in total audience. Reporting and profiles describe All‑In as a powerful, agenda‑setting show in tech and politics; a Wall Street Journal piece pegs it at roughly 750,000 views per episode on average, which is very large for a podcast.(wsj.com) However, CNN and MSNBC still operate as 24‑hour news channels reaching tens of millions of cable households, with average daily audiences in the hundreds of thousands and key shows in the 1–1.5 million viewer range, plus major political events drawing several million viewers per network.(en.wikipedia.org) Digitally, they also generate hundreds of millions to billions of online video views annually; for example, MSNBC’s Ari Melber alone amassed about 1.5 billion online views in 2024, and MSNBC has been described as the most‑watched news network on YouTube.(en.wikipedia.org) This indicates that even if All‑In is “punching above its weight,” its total audience footprint remains well below the combined linear+digital reach of CNN or MSNBC.
-
Why the verdict is “inconclusive,” not “wrong.”
- The deadline hasn’t passed, so by your own framing (“within five years…by early February 2026”) there is still some time left.
- The prediction is explicitly counterfactual (about what would happen if a particular network of shows were launched), and that condition has not been met, so we cannot empirically test his exact claim.
On present evidence, the concrete scenario Jason sketched (a five‑show All‑In Network rivaling CNN/MSNBC in raw prominence/audience) has not materialized so far, and the scale gap remains very large. But because (a) the five‑year period is not over and (b) the triggering “network of five pods” was never actually built, the fairest scoring under your scheme is **“inconclusive (too early)” rather than definitively right or wrong.