Conspiracy Theories 101 Series
Part 11 of 12:
The Media
Part 2
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 1 of 12: Introduction
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 2 of 12: The Deep State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 3 of 12: Conspiracy Theorists - Part 1 and Part 2
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 4 of 12: Pedophile Rings
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 5 of 12: The Surveillance State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 6 of 12: The Banking State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 7 of 12: The Environmental Movement
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 8 of 12: Breaking Up the Family Unit
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 9 of 12: The Conspiracy Against Women - Part 1 and Part 2
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 10 of 12: The Conspiracy Against Visible Minorities - Part 1 and Part 2 and Part 3 and Part 4
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 11 of 12: The Media - Part 1 and Part 2
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 12 of 12: The Stigma of Being a Conspiracy Theorist - Part 1 and Part 2
By: Shawn Alli
Posted: October 10, 2017
Updated: July 2, 2022
*This article was updated in July 2022 because the original web pages were too large to be indexed by Google.
*Note: I use the term liberal trifecta to refer to liberals in general, liberal/progressive/neo-liberal media outlets, and Democrats.
Attacks on the Trump Administration
The Future of Media
Attacks on the Trump Administration
I've never seen so many liberal media attacks on a new federal administration in my life. But then again, are the attacks warranted? Trump's distaste for media is well known even prior to his presidential aspirations. When you're a rich white privileged male with billions of dollars, you're automatically in the crosshairs of liberal media outlets.
But this is different. The attacks are vitriol. Aside from suggesting that Trump be removed from office and how to do it, the liberal trifecta is openly calling for his assassination. It's one thing for white trailer trash rednecks to call for Obama's assassination. Idiots are idiots. There words mean nothing. But it's another thing for the liberal trifecta to openly call for removal, assassination, and rape. Let's start with removal from office:
Mark Ruffalo called for President Trump to be removed from office during a march against white supremacy. [11]
Americans now have to face at least the possibility, a tangible one, that the election itself was subverted by a hostile foreign power in league with the winning presidential campaign, with implications all the way down the ballot.
...Here is the big problem. What if the election was effectively stolen? Under the current presidential succession structure, if Donald Trump were impeached and removed from office, Mike Pence would replace him. But if the election had been stolen, Pence's place as president would be no more legitimate than that of Trump. After Pence—Paul Ryan, the speaker, followed by Orrin Hatch, the president pro tem, followed by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. If voters' collective desires were subverted by foreign interference and a party's collusion, none would have a legitimate claim—especially since the control of the Senate, at least, would have been affected by the Russian role. [12]
How will the Donald Trump presidency end? It will end badly, so let me count the ways:
1. America is hurtling towards a constitutional crisis that will rock its institutions to the core.
2. Its president and his business empire will soon be exposed as beholden to Russian oligarchs and mobsters.
3. Trump will try to fire special counsel Robert Mueller to prevent this from becoming known, but Congress will intervene.
4. His only remaining hope will be a 9/11-scale disaster or contrived war that he can exploit.
5. If we are lucky enough to survive all of the above, Trump will resign before he is impeached — but only in exchange for a pardon from his servile vice-president, Mike Pence. [13]
A stolen election? What a joke. Clinton doesn't win because Americans don't trust people who are products of Wall Street. They don't trust organizations like the Democratic National Committee (DNC) when they sabotage Bernie Sanders' campaign. Clinton's hacked email server scandal is her own undoing and paints an accurate picture of Clinton.
Throw in the Weiner scandal and Benghazi and your candidate is screwed. Yes, Trump has the grab the p*ssy scandal. But for most American voters, at the moment of casting their vote, they don't really care about such things. Liberal media outlets are merely conditioning people to believe that they should care about it for the 2018 midterm elections.
Beholden to the Russian government? Clearly, these writers have a short memory of US intelligence agencies intentionally subverting democratically elected governments throughout the world. And that's only for the ones we know about. We'll never really know or be able to confirm most of the intentional election interference by US intelligence agencies.
And the Russia story? Most of it is just hot air and the perception of wrongdoing vs. actual illegal wrongdoing. All I know is that Russians throughout the world feel great because of their newfound powerful status in supposedly subverting the American electoral process.
Contrary to what the liberal trifecta wants you to believe, releasing hacked emails prior to an election doesn't mean that the election is comprised, illegitimate, or stolen. It just means that other groups are trying to influence the end result.
The Russians bought political ads on Facebook with foreign money. We were manipulated. The 2016 election results aren't valid. We need a do-over. Whatever. This is no different than the liberal trifecta trying to influence the end result of an election or referendum.
During the Brexit referendum, both Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau and US President Barak Obama voices their support for the UK to stay in the European Union (EU). [14] [15] Does the liberal trifecta call this election interference? No. Why not? Because anything that the liberal trifecta does is correct. We can't condemn our correct liberal values. As always, ideology is king.
And just so you know, governments around the world always support or denigrate the election of other governments. Of course, it's usually done behind closed doors for the sake of appearances. In reality, we know the bias exists. They just don't come out and say it because it's not proper political etiquette.
The liberal trifecta really wants to say that Americans are too stupid and vulnerable against foreign influence. They're not capable of rational thinking against foreign interests. Of course, they don't say this out loud, but that's what they believe.
The liberal trifecta constantly pushes out non-story articles claiming, if I knew Trump would do that, I wouldn't have voted for him. Sorry, but that's how its always been. Politicians are not legally liable for any of their promises once in office (it would be interesting if they were though).
But even if Clinton had won the election, people would say the same things. if I knew Hilary would do that, I wouldn't have voted for her. The same applies to Obama in office. If I knew what Obama would do once in office, I wouldn't have voted for him. Sorry, but this is just people changing their minds. The liberal trifecta is completely disingenuous in pushing this script at best and malicious at worst.
Interestingly enough, in the October 1, 2017 Catalonia independence referendum to separate from Spain, Spanish police crackdown on the supposed unconstitutional vote very harshly. They destroy ballot boxes and forcibly remove voters. That's completely unheard of in a WE false democracy. The fact that it occurs is a sign of how bad the situation is in Spain and the EU in general.
More so, the so-called defenders of democracy (WE governments) stay silent on the referendum crackdown. The Canadian, US, UK, French, and German government all stay silent in the immediate aftermath. They refuse to condemn the Spanish government or Spanish police for the brutal crackdown. That's not accidental. That's intentional. Why? Because that’s the way the GSIG script has been written. It's pro-EU. Anything against that is the enemy.
As expected, that silence extends to liberal media outlets as well. Liberal media outlets don't shame the above governments for not condemning the voting crackdown. Why not? Because liberal media outlets are (more or less) following the GSIG script.
Liberal media outlets will shame Trump for not condemning white supremacists (rightly so). But they won't shame WE governments for their lack of condemnation on the referendum crackdown. That's not accidental. That's intentional. Why? Because anything that goes against the EU script is the enemy.
Getting back to Trump, we move to liberal articles to remove Trump due to his supposed lack of mental fitness:
A former Republican senator is calling on Congress to remove President Donald Trump from office because he believes Trump's "sick psyche" dramatically increases the odds of nuclear war.
Gordon Humphrey, who represented New Hampshire for two terms in the US Senate from 1979 until 1990, published an open letter on Thursday urging his state's congressional delegation to support the Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity Act, which would create a commission to determine whether the president is mentally fit. [16]
Last week, in The New York Times, Ross Douthat became the latest and perhaps most prominent advocate of using the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to remove President Donald Trump from office. Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to recommend the removal of the president in cases where he is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," and allows the House and Senate to confirm the recommendation over the president's objection by two-thirds vote. Douthat argued that the Amendment should be invoked to stop what he calls a "childish president" who is unfit for office and who is unlikely to be impeached. [17]
California Democrats are stoking a debate over Donald Trump's mental health and fitness for office, opening a new front in the resistance to the president but raising fears that the line of criticism could backfire.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren last week introduced a congressional resolution urging Trump to seek a medical and psychiatric evaluation to determine if he is unfit for the office. Rep. Jackie Speier called for invoking the 25th Amendment — which empowers the vice president and Cabinet to remove a president who is incapable of serving — after a press conference from Trump Tower in which the president appeared to equate white supremacists with counter-protesters. Both followed on the heels of Rep. Ted Lieu’s push for legislation requiring a psychiatrist at the White House. [18]
I'll humor the liberal trifecta and pretend that Trump is a racist. Is racism a mental illness? It depends on who you ask. If you talk to regular people, no. It's just a false ideology. If you talk to psychologists or psychiatrists, they'll most likely say yes. Why? Because mental illnesses are voted on by the higher-ups in the American Psychiatric Association. It could be a horrible undiagnosed mental illness infecting humanity. Thank god that psychologists and psychiatrists diagnosed it. Sigh.
Contrary to what you may believe, the discipline of psychology and psychiatry are not part of objective falsifiable science. It's merely ideological junk science (see Philosophy of Science in Part I and The Mental Health Industry in Part IV). And the liberal articles of Trump’s supposed lack of mental fitness continue:
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee on Sunday said his colleagues are getting worried about Trump’s mental health — amplifying growing concerns from the past week that the President isn’t fit for his job. "I certainly think that there’s an issue with the President’s capability," Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said on CNN’s "State of the Union." "There's some attribute of his character that makes him seemingly incapable of introspection and a broad understanding of what the country really needs."
Schiff said he expected "the pressures of the job" were only going to make Trump's mental stability "get worse" — and that the President needs "some more adults in the room" to help him focus. [19]
"It's time to talk about Trump's mental health," blared a headline from Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson this week.
"I really question his ability to be — his fitness to be — in this office," former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said Tuesday night after Trump's rambling speech in Arizona.
"He's unhinged. It's embarrassing," CNN's Don Lemon declared Tuesday night , adding, "There was no sanity there."
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said on a hot mic a month ago: "I think he's crazy . I mean, I don't say that lightly and as a kind of a goofy guy." Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) responded, "I'm worried."
...CNN's Brian Stelter noted Sunday that journalists have often wondered about these questions privately and off-camera: “"s the president of the United States a racist? Is he suffering from some kind of illness? Is he fit for office? And if he's unfit, then what?"
Even a Republican senator seemed to allude to the president's fitness last week. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Trump "has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability nor some of the competence" to be president. [20]
Oh dear. The liberal trifecta is definitely showing its true colors in these arguments. And it's a complete joke. Mental fitness? Umm...prior to the 2016 election, Trump runs a multibillion dollar empire. He's definitely fit to run a business. Government just has more checks and balances than Trump's used to. Hence, the difficulties. Now that John Kelly is chief of staff, Trump should be able to get his act together.
Maybe we can just pretend that all the garbage hiring and firing prior to that doesn't exist. Yes, it's a disingenuous to do so. And yes, I've seen gong shows on YouTube that have more rationality than what I'm seeing from the Trump administration these past 8 months.
But going from a multibillion dollar controlled empire to a bureaucratic trillion dollar one isn't an easy transition. I recommend that Americans give him until 2018 and then make their decisions known through their votes in the 2018 midterm elections.
While the liberal trifecta may think that the White House is toxic now, it's nothing relative to the Vietnam era. Not even the illegal US invasion of Iraq compares to Vietnam. But the liberal trifecta wants you to believe that the Trump administration is the worst thing in history. And that's not accidental conditioning. That's intentional.
And then there's the argument that Trump's Canadian supporters are irrational:
...The problem here is a total disregard for cause and effect: to support Donald Trump's efforts in America is to de facto support endeavours that threaten Canada economically, socially and in terms of national security. Making America Great Again absolutely means Making Canada A Little Worse. What patriotic Canadian would wear a hat supporting that?
...All of this is to say nothing of the existential threat Trump poses to the world by threatening nuclear war on Twitter, which should be a concern to anyone who currently enjoys living above ground, regardless of geography.
So while Canadian Trump supporters might delight in the way Trump "tells it like it is," in the same way one might find it amusing to watch a toddler ask socially inappropriate questions of a stranger, that's as far as the admiration should go from any self-described patriotic Canadian. His presidency is bad news for us. It makes no sense to support him. [21]
Sigh. As a rational person, I support some of Trump's policies and disagree with others. As a Canadian, I support all of Trump's policies relative to Canadian policies. Why? Because Canada doesn't really have a genuine economy. We're still mining resources like oil, natural gas, water, and diamonds.
In the 21st century, Canada is just a resource economy (aside from real estate). That's not a compliment. We have no significant industry. We're just the armpit that serves American movie productions and take leftovers from Silicon Valley. It's high time that Canadians start planting firm roots in creating significant industries other than resource mining and real estate.
And finally, we have the suggestion of assassination and harm against Trump, his family, and his administration:
Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes defended his company's financial support for New York's embattled Public Theater...
...the New York arts organization that has come under fire for its current production of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar," which portrays Caesar as a Donald Trump-like character. [22]
The Public's productions will go on, as Oskar Eustis, who is the theater's artistic director and directed this production, told The Times. The Public, which premiered important works like "Hamilton" and "Sweat," enjoys a broad base of support, including from The Times.
...For now, I expect the queues for "Julius Caesar" at the Delacorte Theater in Central Park will grow even longer after this bogus scandal...People will disagree with the Public and they might even be offended, but seeking to shut the play down is overkill. [23]
A rightwing protester has been charged with trespassing after interrupting a New York production of Julius Caesar during the assassination scene and shouting: "This is violence against Donald Trump."
...Scalise, a top-ranking Republican, was wounded in a shooting at a congressional baseball practice on Wednesday in Alexandria, Virginia. The gunman, James Hodgkinson, had a history of domestic violence. He was also a Bernie Sanders supporter who had criticized Trump on social media. [24]
The liberal trifecta will support plays where it looks like Trump is assassinated, but won't support HBO's future show Confederate. The liberal trifecta will blame Infowars for the actions of Edgar Maddison Welch (Pizzagate shooter and follower of Infowars), but won't blame their own side for the actions of James T. Hodgkinson (Virginia shooter and follower of Bernie Sanders). That's disingenuous. That's how you know that media coverage is rigged to present liberal views as being correct.
And the liberal assassination articles continue:
MSNBC's Counter Terrorism Analyst Malcolm Nance stepped up and suggested that ISIS bomb a Trump property in Turkey. "This is my nominee for first ISIS suicide bombing of a Trump property,"... [25]
A Nebraska Democratic [Phil Montag] official has been removed Thursday from his chairman post after recordings emerged in which he said he was glad that House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) was shot and that he wished he had died. [26]
Madonna said Saturday that she'd thought "an awful lot about blowing up the White House." [27]
What started as beef between Snoop Dogg and Donald Trump may soon result in felony charges for multiple rappers. That includes Bow Wow (real name Shad Moss), who risks being slapped with serious felony charges for issuing threats of his own...
This all started on Monday when Snoop Dogg released 'Lavender,' which contains a graphic, mock assassination of President Trump. That drew quick warnings from Marco Rubio and Donald Trump's attorney, before Trump himself demanded prison time for the rapper.
...Specifically, Bow Wow blasted this threat against Melania Trump following Trump's demand for Snoop Dogg's arrest.
"Ayo @realDonaldTrump shut your punk ass up talking sh*t about my uncle @SnoopDogg before we pimp your wife and make her work for us."
That introduces a number of intentional threats, including kidnapping and forced sexual slavery. Specifically, 'pimping' would introduce charges for 'inflicting bodily harm' against a First Lady. [28]
Sigh. Black rappers today...Nuff said. And the suggestion of assassination and harm continue:
Kathy Griffin's photo shoot with controversial photographer Tyler Shields in which she is shown holding a bloodied mask of Donald Trump that makes it look as if the President was beheaded has ignited a firestorm of criticism.
...Shortly after Debbie Reynolds and Carrie Fisher’s deaths, Charlie Sheen took to Twitter asking God to take President Trump next.
...TMZ caught actor Mickey Rourke on a rant about Trump in which he said threatened to beat the then presidential candidate with a baseball bat. The 64-year-old continued to call him "the biggest scumbag on the planet." [29]
CNN has apologized to Donald Trump after a producer was caught on camera joking with reporter Suzanne Malveaux about the president-elect's plane crashing. [30]
More than 12,000 tweets have called for President Donald Trump's assassination since he was inaugurated two weeks ago, according to Dataminr statistics. [31]
The Los Angeles Times on Thursday fired an international correspondent hours after he tweeted that he would "rather see Donald Trump's life end."
Freelance reporter Steven Borowiec was responding to a Time Magazine tweet about a Donald Trump photo gallery that read, "See Donald Trump's life in photos,"... [32]
Johnny Depp is apologizing for a "bad joke" about assassinating U.S. President Donald Trump during an appearance at the Glastonbury Festival in Britain. [33]
A Missouri lawmaker who posted a Facebook comment expressing hope that U.S. President Donald Trump would be assassinated could face an effort to remove her from office.
Republican Gov. Eric Greitens and Lt. Gov. Mike Parson both said on Friday that state senators should oust Democratic Sen. Maria Chapelle-Nadal, who has continued to reject calls for her resignation. [34]
The reason why the assassination/suggestions of assassination are a real problem is the same reason why movies can be a problem. When you suggest killing someone, overthrowing the system, or committing a crime and/or unethical actions, you plant a potential seed in the mind of viewers.
The 2014 movie The Interview is a good example. While all movies are entertainment first, conditioning to do XYZ isn't far behind. Creating a plot to kill the North Korean dictator is an attempt to condition people do it/accept it. How will moviegoers interpret this? Aside from the entertainment value they might start thinking yah, it would be a good idea to take him out in the name of world peace.
And those thoughts turn into reviews, which can turn into a debate. And now we're in non-fiction, real life. Would it be a good idea to kill the North Korean dictator in real life? Well, let's look at the aftermath. And people start to plan it out in their mind and post it on blogs. This is how the process works. And this is why it's so dangerous for the liberal trifecta to apply this to Trump.
Just in case you're not aware, GSIGs have been conditioning people via Hollywood movies for a long time. The conditioning process tends to stick to those without character and purpose. Sadly, most people in WE society don't have a strong character or a sense of purpose in their lives.
Hence, they're more susceptible to GSIG conditioning. Yes, the amount of influence that GSIGs wield has declined significantly with the rise of the internet, but GSIGs are notorious in their ability to adapt to changing situations. The motto of the Borg in Star Trek is clearly created by GSIGs.
Again, media outlets in general don't serve GSIGs directly. There's no secret meeting where GSIGs give owners/board of directors/journalists their marching orders. While that may exist on a very small scale, it's not necessary at all. Why not?
Because the GSIG script is already known. Only the mechanisms change from time to time (see The Deep State). Most journalists are just useful idiots to GSIGs. And if they do a good job, they'll get perks and access to more things/people.
The Washington Post is betting heavily against Trump. And to be fair, it's not a bad bet. If they succeed with a 2018 impeachment, Pulitzer prizes will be coming their way. But they also risk alienating readers who see them as middle ground.
The New York Times on the other hand likes to play it safe with the middle ground approach (liberal news reporting with conservative op-eds). Why? Because they know that they need the entire audience to stay profitable. They won't make it in the post-Trump administration if they only cater to liberal audiences. Unlike the Washington Post, they don't have a sugar daddy to bankroll them.
And finally, there are the analogies between the Trump administration and Nazi Germany by the liberal trifecta:
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow emotionally proclaimed Trump's "America's First" slogan has "very dark echoes in American history."
"There was an America First Committee that formed in this country, hundreds of thousands of people in this country, some of the richest businessmen in the country who were part of it, they were formed to keep us out of World War II. They were infiltrated by the Nazis, many of them are anti-Semitic...
Over on ABC, journalist Terry Moran echoed Maddow's comments saying Trump's speech reminded him of the 1930s.
"It carries with it overtones from the 1930s when an anti-Semitic movement saying, 'We don't want to get involved in Europe's war. It's the Jews fault in Germany!'" [35]
MSNBC's Chris Matthews said Friday that President Trump's inaugural address was both "Hitlerian" and meant to mimic Russian President Vladimir Putin. [36]
President Donald Trump brought his bombastic politics to a Boy Scouts event Monday in West Virginia, drawing cheers from the children gathered at the event and prompting comparisons between his rousing rhetoric and Nazi youth rallies from some liberal activists and journalists. [37]
A Georgia high school teacher compared the President Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan to a swastika and ordered students wearing t-shirts supporting the president to leave her classroom.
...the exclusive video and it shows the teacher explaining to students that they could not wear pro-Trump clothing "just like you cannot wear a swastika to school." [38]
When the liberal trifecta makes analogies between the Trump administration and Nazis, that's how you know that they're desperately trying to regain their ability to influence the public on a mass scale.
Today, the liberal trifecta is building up Michael Moore as their spokesperson to battle Trump in the court of public opinion and Hollywood. That's how desperate the liberal trifecta is. They've stooped to the level of calling on an obese climate change believer to stop Trump.
The hatred of Trump by the liberal trifecta has even enabled a loss of rationality. In the past, the liberal trifecta vilifies Comey's investigation into Hilary and then loves him after being fired. That's disingenuous. This is why the American public and genuine people are tuning out of liberal media outlets. They can smell the bullsh*t that the liberal trifecta is serving them.
Whenever Trump's administration or business investments fail, the liberal trifecta (more or less) praises it and ends with, you can't really trust these people. They got what they deserved.
Does the liberal trifecta do the same with any other business mogul/corporation? No. Why Trump? Because they take pleasure in seeing Trump and his family fail. That's how you know that the proverbial liberal soul is rotting in hell, waiting for everyone else to join them.
The Future of Media
In 2017, we're in a polarized media landscape that's cannibalizing itself. We're in a period where mainstream media outlets don't know if they'll be able to operate in the next 5-10 years. Hence, the sponsored content and automatic video content (be it advertisements or news content).
For the love of god, can media outlets stop auto loading their sh*tty videos? I'm talking to you Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, National Post, Reuters, Bloomberg, CNN, ABC News, Los Angeles Times, CBS News, Salon, and Independent.
For f*cks sakes, turn off your automatic video loading. It slows down everything else. If I want to watch your sh*tty video I'll click play. You don't need to preload it. Christ.
So what are the solutions? Is it subscribers and paywalls? Is it more polarized ideological reporting? Is it more investigative journalism? Oddly enough, it's all three. While liberal media outlets have tried and failed with paywalls, conservative ones like the UK Times and WSJ are doing pretty well.
Investigative journalism is great but ideology is a problem. Liberal media outlets going after Big Everything is good because there's usually some illegal activity taking place. But if that's to the degree of ignoring visible minority organizations...that's a problem. While opinions can be as biased as you want, investigate journalism can’t be. All groups who commit unethical or illegal activities are fair targets.
This is one reason why Breitbart is so popular. Breitbart investigates visible minority organizations for their liberal policies. While no illegal activity takes place, unethical actions do arise. As a visible minority, I commend them for showing unethical activities in abortion clinics. Again, nothing illegal is taking place, but the public has a right to know how cavalier liberals are with abortion.
Of course, Breitbart (like Infowars) has been wrong many times due to a lack of due diligence and blind ideological reporting. And that's a problem. But their win from the Weiner scandal gives them a new lifeline (despite the advertising boycott). One more major break and Breitbart will be good for life in terms of credibility in the eyes of the public.
In terms of money, mainstream TV media outlets aren't going anywhere. Why not? Because they're smart enough to diversify. Comcast and Viacom take in massive revenue from their movies/TV shows.
CNN's parent (Time Warner) owns DC characters.
Fox News' parent (21st Century Fox) owns rights to a few Marvel characters.
ABC's parent (Disney) owns the rights to almost all Marvel characters. Owning rights to DC and Marvel characters alone is enough to keep them in business for decades (regardless of cord cutters).
Of course, the same is not true of print media. Print media is on its way out the door with its declining ad revenue and low subscriber numbers. And while the NYT is sitting comfortably with impressive subscriber numbers, that won't be paying anyone's salary. And Tronc (which owns the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and New York Daily News), is also sitting pretty with a stock around $15.00.
But most of that it due to the baby boomer generation. When they pass away, so does old school print media outlets. And the Washington Post is similar to Glenn Greenwald's Intercept. They're both owned by sugar daddies (Jeff Bezos and Pierre Omidyar).
The main reason why TV media outlets are doing relatively well is because of Trump. You can say that Trump is slowing down the demise of the media as big players that matter. I feel bad for the next Democrat president. He/she will never be able to top Trump's daily antics. And many viewers will just tune out as politics goes back to the same old bullsh*t.
In Canada the situation is dire. Aside from the massive layoffs and asset sell-offs, Canadian print outlets don't know if it can survive the next 5-10 years. The Toronto Star's stock is less than $1.50 (Cdn). Postmedia's stock is less than 50 cents (Cdn). That's pretty bad. The Globe and Mail is a private company owned by the super rich Thomson family (via the Woodbridge Company, which also owns Thomson Reuters).
If the Toronto Star can't turn things around in the next 5 years, I wouldn't be surprised if they're acquired by the Thompson family. And many low quality newspapers like the Toronto Sun are owned by media conglomerate Quebecor, which has a stock hovering over $45.00 (Cdn). That's very impressive.
In the UK, liberal print media outlets like the Guardian are drowning because they don't want to put up a paywall. Like most print outlets, they're losing big money to Facebook and Google. It's so bad that they're asking donations from the public. That's just sad.
However, they still have a sturdy life jacket. And that life jacket is the Bill Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. If you look at the top of some Guardian articles online, it says that it's supported by such foundations.
This is why most people don't have to worry about liberal media outlets. Liberal billionaires can bail them out. Whether they'll actually do so is questionable. Why? Because it would be an endless drain on their wallet. Even though they're liberal, they still have a conservative sense of doing business. On the bright side, Pierre Omidyar commits to $100 million in funding for investigative journalism and combating fake news. [39]
But foundations and sugar daddies are a slippery slope for real media outlets. Just as liberals accuse conservatives of shady foundation money, the same applies to liberals. Shady money and backroom deals are very difficult to prove in private foundations and will eventually lead to the erosion of independent and genuine reporting/investigative journalism. If liberal media outlets are beholden to liberal billion dollar foundations and sugar daddies, they're less likely to initiate an investigation into them.
There's no doubt that liberal media print outlets are swimming in dangerous waters. In the quest for genuine and honest news, the question of whether media outlets should be for-profit or non-profit is worth asking (see Media in Part II).
But that's all on the financial side. On the influence/conditioning side, it's another issue. Today, mainstream media outlets are desperate to regain their ability to influence people. Let me show you how bad it is for mainstream media outlets relative to alternative media outlets in terms of YouTube subscribers.
*Note: this list only represents influence, not profitability.
*Note: I don't include Canadian media outlets because the numbers are too sad to post.
*Note: I don't include Buzzfeed because it's not a real media outlet. It sh*ts out sensational and clickbait journalism.
*Note: These figures are true as of publishing date (October 2017).
Vice Media - 8.2 million
Young Turks (TYT) - 3.4 million
ABC News - 2.8 million
RT - 2.2 million
Infowars - 2.1 million
Al Jazeera English - 1.6 million
BBC News - 1.5 million
Wired - 1.4 million
New York Times - 995K
Associated Press - 717K
Fox News - 713K
Bloomberg - 680K
Wall Street Journal - 585K
NBC News - 541K
PBS NewsHour - 501K
CBS News - 444K
Vanity Fair - 427K
Guardian - 390K
Economist - 331K
HuffPost - 329K
Telegraph - 270K
Time - 249K
Rolling Stone - 183K
Washington Post - 141K
Financial Times - 126K
NPR - 111K
New Yorker - 106K
Blaze - 99K
Los Angeles Times - 99K
Breitbart News - 64K
Atlantic - 55K
Mother Jones - 26K
Daily Beast - 20K
UK Times and Sunday Times - 13K
Independent - 12K
Newsweek - 9K
Politico - 8.1K
Salon - 1.8K
London Evening Standard - 1.5K
Vice Media and TYT are killing it. Clearly, both are ahead of the curve and a force to be reckoned with. It's a shame that they yield to the ideological science of climate change. If they didn't, we could probably get along.
If the staff and owners knew what falsifiability is and applied it to climate change, they would realize that climate change is based on ideological junk science. The same science that gives rise to garbage like eugenics, men's superior intelligence, women's nurturing nature, hair testing, bite-mark analysis, and cholesterol and fat causing heart disease.
But the question remains. Will the influence of Vice Media and TYT translate into votes/action? That's debatable. TYT and liberal alternative media outlets can definitely take credit for their win against Trumpcare. And yes, they have the right to throw that in the faces of conservative media outlets just as conservative media outlets throw Clinton's loss in their face.
Aside from their single win, they've lost on everything else. The liberal trifecta is 0-4 in terms of wins for special election seats. Infowars and Breitbart don't have many wins but their influence in pushing Trump into the White House definitely counts as a big win.
With the stench of loss and a rotting base, Democrats and liberal mainstream media outlets are lost. They're still trying to condition the public to care about the Russia scandal, the White House gong show, and Trump's supposedly racist administration. Sorry, but in the end, jobs and the price of goods matter the most to low-mid income voters.
Liberal alternative media outlets are taking an unusual path. TYT plans to support their own Justice Democrat candidates in the 2018 midterms that will supposedly save the American people. That's interesting, but it's highly unlikely to succeed.
Why? Because TYT is like Bernie Sanders. They're liberal in policies only. In reality, they're outsiders against Big everything. And that's a problem because mainstream liberals are only against Big Everything as a candidate. When they get into office, it's business as usual.
While there's a good deal of infighting in the Republican camp, the same is potentially true for liberals in 2018. It's Bernie Sanders and the Occupy movement vs. Establishment Democrats and Wall Street. It will be an interesting ideological battle.
While I like TYT because of their genuine nature, I don't think that they understand how the game works. They believe that their genuine nature is enough to bypass Big Gov't, Big Industry, Wall Street and K street lobbyists. In theory, the little guys have a chance. In reality, that chance is merely an illusion created by those in power for the sake of appearances.
A third party has been tried and failed numerous times. Independent media outlets in the 1970s were eventually swallowed up by multinational corporate behemoths. And with TYT's new $20 million in funding via private equity and Hollywood moguls, [40] they may share the same fate. Cenk Uygur's Justice Democrats will most likely amount to nothing more than the NDP in Canada. Also known as Canada's third party that never wins.
At the federal level, the NDP has never won a majority or minority government. The best it can ever hope for in their liberal/progressive ideologies is to be the official opposition. In the US, the Reform Party or the Libertarian Party has never won any electoral seats. The ideology that Uygur's Justice Democrats is going to change all of that is naive at best and delusional at worst.
Uygur believes that his Justice Democrats are going to redo the system from scratch. It's a nice dream but it's not going to work. The current political/electoral infrastructure CAN'T be changed. Uygur needs to realize that.
That doesn't mean that a real democracy (a skoparxist government) can't exist. It can. But not within the current political/electoral infrastructure (see Philosophy of Governance & Economics in Part I).
Even if Uygur's Justice Democrats miraculously win, they'll most likely change once they're in office. This is how the soul crushing political system works in a false democracy. You want to pass a bill? What will you give me in return? Sadly, the WE political system tends to grind down a politicians' character to the bone once in office. This is why honorable and good people usually don't go into politics.
And then we have the mudslinging. Cenk Uygur vs. Roger Stone, Steven Bannon, and Alex Jones. The fact that Stone can make Uygur's blood boil is a sign that Uygur's Justice Democrats will buckle against strong conservative pressure.
While Uygur is fighting to replace establishment Democrats with his Justice Democrats, Bannon is fighting to replace establishment Republicans with nationalists. Blades sharpening blades. I look forward to seeing how it will all play out. In another life, these two could have been rival friends with a potential bromance. Shame we don't live in that world.
Democrats and so-called progressives wish they had his equivalent on their side. Personally, I think that the only way that Uygur's Justice Democrats have a chance at winning is if Stone and Bannon die before the 2018 midterm elections.
For the record, I don't agree with Stone's provocateur methods and his ideology that the end justifies the means. It's unethical to intentionally rile people up to get a reaction. But Stone is like Tyrion Lannister from HBO's Game of Thrones. He loves the game. He knows how to play it well and how to get things done.
At the 2016 Republican National Convention, Uygur loses it when Stone provokes him. Stone replies with:
blowjob blowjob blowjob...bullsh*t bullsh*t bullsh*t. [41]
I'm dying with laughter because the moment brings me back to the 1978 film Animal House where John Belushi's character says blowjob in court. What is the correct facial expression for media onlookers after hearing blowjob blowjob blowjob? That's not a rhetorical question. I'd like an honest answer.
But let's get back to the issue. The media in 2017 is little more than ideological camps claiming that their audience is bigger than the competition. Another pissing contest. What's the solution to the ideological reporting and lack of revenue crisis? It depends. If you're a for-profit media outlet, ideology is king. Real journalism is dying but entertainment is still thriving. Continue ideological reporting and occasionally throw in a few investigative stories and you're gold.
But if you're a person who wants objective/neutral reporting, all you can do today is follow serious media outlets. That includes ProPublica, the Intercept, the Center for Investigative Reporting, WikiLeaks, Der Speigel, and CBC News (Canada).
Normally, I would never include a national broadcaster like CBC News, but they're really pushing the envelope in their investigative journalism in the last few years. I'm fine with my tax dollars going to CBC News' investigative journalism division. But not their TV shows. Oh dear god they're terrible. Any shows that can't be sold to Netflix, Amazon, or regular TV networks goes to CBC (I'm talking to you Kim's Convenience).
While Gawker may have wanted to be a strong adversarial media outlet, they turned out to be a clickbait factory for garbage, rumors, and invasions of privacy. Along with Buzzfeed, they belong in the trash. Liberal media outlets only rally to Gawker's side because the enemy is Peter Thiel (a Trump alley). Prior to that, liberal media outlets despise Gawker's existence.
And the story about Thiel's secret financing of Hogan's lawsuit is a non-story. It doesn't matter where the money comes from. It doesn't matter that Thiel has an axe to grind with Gawker. Why not? If you believe in the current justice/legal system, justice can't be bought.
If you believe in the current justice system, you can't praise it when you think it's fair and call it corrupt when it rules against you/your cause. That's disingenuous. And no, the current justice system can't be changed. If you want a redo, you'll have to opt for a skoparxist justice system (see Philosophy of Ethics and Philosophy of Law in Part I).
And just so we're clear, Thiel is more of a philosopher than all academic philosophers combined. Why? Because he's attempting to solve real problems. I strongly disagree with his solutions. But at least he's trying to help, unlike bullsh*t academic philosophers (see The Failure of Academic Philosophy in Part II).
The ideology that most reporters are doing their best to create impartial reporting is false. Most of it is biased (which is normal). Reporters are doing their job through the filter of their ideologies. And perceiving reality through liberal or conservative ideologies narrows your view and understanding of the world.
Liberal journalists who believe that their job is to piss off rich people misunderstand journalism. Aside from neutral reporting, journalism is supposed to be a strong check against corrupt, unethical, and illegal actions from government and industry (that includes liberal ones as well).
And just so we're clear, real media outlets have particular characteristics that prove that they're a real media outlet:
Reporters (on the scene)
Journalists (writers)
Pre-publication
Verification
Non-vetted questions
Willing to correct mistakes when proven wrong.
Of course, not all media outlets have these characteristics. While the NYT and Washington Post have them, Infowars, Brietbart, HuffPost, and TYT are lacking in some areas. But if you're really serious about objective/neutral news, I recommend reading the following journalists:
Glenn Greenwald (Intercept)
Van Jones (CNN, former Obama advisor)
Maureen Dowd (NYT)
Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stone).
Of course, these people have their own biases and subjective beliefs. The reason why I hold them in higher regard is because they're capable of going beyond their own ideologies. It doesn't mean that they will go beyond their ideologies on a regular basis. It means that they're capable of it. And that's important if you want to understand the larger picture.
References:
[1] Abramson, Jill. Hillary Clinton is almost certain to be president. Guardian. October 20, 2016.
[2] Live Presidential Forecast – Election Results 2016. New York Times.
[3] TRUMP BLATANTLY IGNORES REPORTERS: "You're FAKE News" - CALLS OUT CNN – FNN. YouTube video. Posted by: Fox 10 Phoenix, January 11, 2017.
[4] $4 Billion Investment and 4,000 Jobs from Corning, Merck, and Pfizer Initiative. White House. July 20, 2017.
[5] Phillips, Tom. Donald Trump soft pedals after earlier threats of trade war with China. Guardian. August 15, 2017.
[6] Rappeport, Alan. Bill to Erase Some Dodd-Frank Banking Rules Passes in House. New York Times. June 8, 2017.
[7] Alessi, Christopher. Investors heartened by Trump's apparent support of a Bayer-Monsanto merger. Wall Street Journal. February 20, 2017.
[8] Borger, Julian. Trump to expand US military intervention in Afghanistan. Guardian. August 22, 2017.
[9] Pittis, Don. The military-industrial complex is booming in Trump's America: Don Pittis. CBC News. August 24, 2017.
[10] House of Commons passes anti-Islamophobia motion. CBC News. March 23, 2017.
[11] Mark Ruffalo calls for Donald Trump to be removed from office as he marches against white supremacy. Fox News. September 1, 2017.
[12] Ornstein, Norm. Rewriting the Rules of Presidential Succession. Atlantic. March 26, 2017.
[13] Burman, Tony. We now know how the Trump presidency will end. Let's hope we survive: Burman. Toronto Star. August 3, 2017.
[14] Tasker, John Paul. Justin Trudeau steps into 'Brexit' debate, says Britain should stay in EU. CBC News. May 19, 2016.
[15] Stewart, Heather and Khomami, Nadia. Barack Obama issues Brexit trade warning. Guardian. April 25, 2016.
[16] Stein, Jeff. "Sick of mind": ex-GOP senator says Trump must be removed before he can start nuclear war. Vox. August 11, 2017.
[17] Rosen, Jeffrey. The 25th Amendment Makes Presidential Disability a Political Question. Atlantic. May 23, 2017.
[18] Marinucci, Carla. California Democrats lead attack over Trump's mental health. Politico. August 23, 2017.
[19] Silverstien, Jason. Congress members getting worried about Trump's mental health. New York Daily News. August 20, 2017.
[20] Blake, Aaron. Questions about Trump's mental health are spilling into the open. Let's be careful. Washington Post. August 23, 2017.
[21] Urback, Robyn. It makes zero sense to be a Canadian Trump supporter: Robyn Urback. CBC News. September 8, 2017.
[22] Holloway, Daniel. Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes Defends Public Theater's 'Julius Caesar,' CNN at Shareholders Meeting. Variety. June 15, 2017.
[23] Bajaj, Vikas. Julius Caesar, Another Opportunity for Outrage. New York Times. June 14, 2017.
[24] Wahlquist, Calla and Beckett, Lois. 'This is violence against Donald Trump': rightwingers interrupt Julius Caesar play. Guardian. June 17, 2017.
[25] Fondacaro, Nicholas. MSNBC's Malcolm Nance Nominates Trump Tower Istanbul for 'ISIS Suicide Bombing.' Fox News. April 19, 2017.
[26] Wong, Herman. 'I'm glad he got shot': Nebraska Democrat caught on tape criticizing Rep. Steve Scalise. Washington Post. June 23, 2017.
[27] D'Zurilla, Christie. Madonna clarifies 'blowing up the White House' comment: 'Taken wildly out of context.' Los Angeles Times. January 23, 2017.
[28] Resnikoff, Paul. Bow Wow Could Face Felony Charges for 'Issuing Threats' Against Melania Trump. Digital Music News. March 16, 2017.
[29] Kathy Griffin's photo shoot with bloody Trump mask not first time celebs have joked about harming the President. Fox News. May 31, 2017.
[30] Parker, Ryan. CNN Apologizes to Trump After Crew Caught Joking About His Plane Crashing. Hollywood Reporter. December 2, 2016.
[31] More than 12,000 tweets have called for Trump's assassination since the inauguration. Daily Mail. February 3, 2017.
[32] LA Times Correspondent Fired For Trump Death Tweet. CBS San Francisco. November 3, 2016.
[33] Kennedy, Mark. Johnny Depp apologizes, says Trump assassination quip was 'bad joke.’ Associated Press. June 23, 2017.
[34] Missouri politician posts online that she hopes 'Trump is assassinated.' Associated Press. August 18, 2017.
[35] MSNBC, ABC hosts deem Trump inaugural address as 'militant,' 'anti-Semitic.' Fox News. January 20, 2017.
[36] Concha, Joe. MSNBC's Chris Matthews: Trump inauguration speech 'Hitlerian.' Hill. January 20, 2017.
[37] Silva. Cristina. Trump Boy Scout Speech is Nazi Hitler Youth Rally, Left Says. Newsweek. July 24, 2017.
[38] Starnes, Todd. Teacher compares Trump's 'Make America Great Again' slogan to swastikas. Fox News. September 4, 2017.
[39] Singh, Anita. eBay founder Pierre Omidyar commits $100m to fight 'fake news' and hate speech. Telegraph. April 5, 2017.
[40] Spangler, Todd. Jeffrey Katzenberg's WndrCo Invests in TYT Network as Part of $20 Million Round. Variety. August 8, 2017.
[41] Get Me Roger Stone. Netflix. 2017.