Thursday, July 13, 2017

Forbid face time for fake news

Agnostic suggests breaking the major media companies up:
Destroying the media enemy requires a cold hard look at how they operate, what their source of power is, and what our power is that can counteract that. This will downplay the importance of launching another meme war against CNN (or MSNBC or whoever), and instead shift the focus toward the need to break up the monopolies that control the media.
If it can be done then by all means do so.

A less herculean task, and one that would prove more popular in the nearer-term, is for Trump and his team to simply bar them from press conferences--including Sean Spicer's daily briefings--and grant members of select organizations no more access than the White House allows private citizens visiting the capital as tourists. Make it administration policy not to grant interviews or otherwise talk to anyone from any of those on the figurative proscription list.

If you're part of a fake news outlet, you get no access, period. If you misrepresent yourself in an attempt to get information, you'll be subject to prosecution for fraud, trespassing, etc. If you get in an official's face in public, you'll be charged with assault.

Media figures are not high priests. They're the middle men of information conveyance in a world that increasingly has no need for middle men conveying information. Communications now come from the whole seller directly to the consumer.

The utter collapse in confidence in the major media--both print and television--is staggering. The following graphs show the percentages of people who answered that they have "a great deal of confidence" and "hardly any confidence at all" in each media platform, by year. The third possible response, "only some confidence", is not shown, but is the difference between 100 and the other two percentages shown in any given year:

We are to a point now where a majority of Americans have "hardly any confidence at all" in the press, and most of the balance are themselves wary. Sentiment towards TV isn't far behind.

The latest year we have data for is 2016. Response gathering was scattered throughout that year. Some respondents were answering prior to the Iowa caucuses occurring. Rest assured the figures will be markedly worse still when the 2018 iteration of the survey is released.

Shutting out fake news organizations won't create any significant blow back. Nobody watches these cable news shows. The few who do are geriatric white leftists. The average CNN viewer is in his sixties and getting older by the day. The #resistance that rallies to the defense of the hated and distrusted media will comprise a small contingent of the Coalition of the Fringes, a contingent the rest of the coalition is most eager to push out anyway.

Even the thoroughly converged corporate world is moving away. There are several podcasts I've listened to for years that have recently begun taking on ads that are indistinguishable from the ones that run during NFL games. The advertising used to only be for niche goods and services. Now there are ads for cars on The Art of Manliness and The History of Byzantium.

Trump should grab some easy populism points by helping send the fake news organizations to their graves.

GSS variables used: CONTV(1)(3), CONPRESS(1)(3), YEAR


andrewknorr said...

Looks like the turning point was Clinton's first term, though beginning with Clarence Thomas hearigns in 1991 and peaking around the time of contract with America in 1994. Basically when the boomers (Clinton and Gingrich) took over. There doesn't seem to be any obvious event that kicked it off, though I guess looking back Bill Clinton did really represent something entirely new.

chris said...

My ideal scenario for Trump:
1) Defund the humanities and social sciences while outright banning some subjects under title vi and title ix (all the ethnic studies/gender studies/critical theory studies subjects) under the basis they promote hatred of whites and men. Title ix is used like this by the left all the time, it's about time we start using it against the left.
2) Open up the libel laws so that the media can't knowingly spread fake news. Trust bust the major media corporations.
3) Trust bust the other major corporations that continually donate to leftist causes.
4) Enact a Soros law preventing him and his money from influencing american politics.

All these things are well within the overton window.

Black Death said...

While I despise the L├╝genpresse as much as you do, any sort of official government action against them is unwise and probably unconstitutional - and it would make them appear to be martyrs and victims. If Trump wants to exclude them from his news conferences and briefings, that's his call. However, government takng action against media because it disapproves of what they are saying smacks of police state or banana republic. You can be sure, if the Democrats ever get back in control, they will be delighted to use such a weapon against outlets such as Fox or Drudge or Breitbart or even the WSJ.

We all know what frauds, hypocrites and villains these sanctimonious MSM types are - they're not fooling anyone. Best to let them twist slowly in the wind. Freedom of speech means freedom for the speech we hate, as I am constantly reminding Leftists. Let them go on peddling their lies - I'll stick with the First Amendment.

James said...

The last poll I saw showed that the MSM and politicians were running neck and neck as to who is the most untrustworthy occupations. Isn't that great? Two of the most powerful groups are the two least trusted. I hope this trend accelerates.

Audacious Epigone said...


What about the collapse of the Soviet Union and subsequent revelations of the BS in some media places that the USSR was great? Overblown? I'm much too young to have any personal recollection so I may be way off on this.


All good.

Black Death,

This isn't a call to forcibly muzzle the media, it's simply to stop giving them special treatment. I wouldn't even recommend threatening libel. Treat them the same way protesters are treated.


It's already damned near critical mass.

Dan said...

Agree. There was a recent presser with Hope Hicks. She began by saying that she is not taking questions on Don Jr and those questions are referred to his lawyer. Then basically every question was about Don Jr, one after the other, at least a dozen, while she declined every one. What is the point? They are nothing but shrieking protesters.

andrewknorr said...

Nobody thought the SU was great and nobody cares about foreign policy unless there are lots of casualties. I would guess it began long before the numbers started to turn, so probably began at least as far back as Iran-Contra, Clarence Thomas, the Bush-Rather interview, the government shutdown in 1990 that was blamed on Republicans, and then the Clinton win. That was the beginning of the budget standoffs that were always blamed on Republicans.

Feryl said...

"What about the collapse of the Soviet Union and subsequent revelations of the BS in some media places that the USSR was great? Overblown? I'm much too young to have any personal recollection so I may be way off on this."

An NY times reporter (or at least regular contributor) whose name escapes me habitually lied about the post-Revolution ruling class and it's atrocities. I'd say that the MSM, after WW1 and during the build-up of the clash between the Allies and the fascists that was WW2, was well on it's way to downplaying Left-wing excess while denigrating ethnic nationalism.

By the 1970's, the nature of commie horrors could no longer be hidden, and very few Westerners openly or even secretly admired any of the commie nations, The Soviets included. Silents and Boomers grew to absolutely detest the "hard controls" of big authoritarian government in any form, whether fascist or communist. However, these privileged generations also shied away from conflicts/ideologies based on economic issues; in the 1970's, both the right and left began to emphasize cultural/moral issues. This created the schism that dominated right along with these generations; the right was religious, pro-life, pro-gun, anti-sex in media, etc. while the Left was secular,feminist, anti-violence in media, etc. Both sides knew about, but didn't care, the growing level of inequality in the post-1970 West. A generation of spoiled ingrates on the right could whine about the church no longer being respected (maybe that's cuz your generation corrupted the church?), while the equivalent Left whined about their children being desensitized to violence (while excusing drug, crime, and abortion epidemics created by Leftist ideology). What united the me-generation was a fear that a "strong-man" would take a Western country by storm again, and go about the process of purifying the culture by flattening individual egos and the idiosyncratic battles they relished fighting.

The Me-Gen has also done it's best to suppress discussion of the real issues at hand: the Right glorifies the inherent ideal of the military instead of admitting that the war machine is gluttonous beast which disproportionately affects white proles. The Right also rests on the laurels of 70's/80's/90's economic policies that benefited now elderly people but have battered later generations.

On the other hand, the Left doesn't want to reckon with the way that feminist/racialist/pro-immigrant ideology has created a hypocritical elite that's getting bribed by Wall Street, and has nothing useful to offer to white proles while not doing much for the native white middle class either. Also, the Left has promoted decadent culture that hits the lowest IQs (of which there is so much among their pet racial groups)hardest. But since white liberal elites feel better about themselves, what difference does it make that so few people experience an overall gain from modern Leftism (immigrants exist to be exploited by business and politicians, the black "community" is ravaged, most young strivers are crippled with debt and can't start families, etc.)?

Feryl said...

I really think that the cynical worthless posturing of Silents and Boomers has come crashing down on X-ers and Millennials, who just want a break from the toxic bickering and egos of the two most spoiled generations in history, the Silents and Boomers. They felt that the Soviets and Nazis had permanently discredited the even theoretical efficacy of a nation-wide political and moral authority. Me-gen conservatives always think that the gov. is sure to push nasty ideas and people down our throats, liberals think the same. Remember that Reagan's young speechwriters wrote lines like, "the worst thing you can hear is: I'm from the gov. and I'm here to help you". Instead of focusing on populist and mutually beneficial policies, the Me-Gen would rather hi-jack the government for the gratification of boutique and striver friendly issues. Roe v Wade takes on greater importance than stopping 10 more stupid wars; tranny bathrooms have greater urgency than getting our factories back.

Alas, the sheer amount of damage inflicted by these two generations (and the G.I.s and X-ers who didn't stand up to them), is going to be tough to repair.

Feryl said...

"While I despise the L├╝genpresse as much as you do, any sort of official government action against them is unwise and probably unconstitutional - and it would make them appear to be martyrs and victims."

The worst MSM rags are owned by robber barons. Going after them on account of fraud or monopoly is a better idea than jailing them or their editors/reporters for treason.

"use such a weapon against outlets such as Fox or Drudge or Breitbart or even the WSJ."

For 40 years, the Left has increasingly agitated for control of "offensive" speech, which it has of course gotten in other Western countries with less robust free speech laws. I would argue that in America, esp. before Obama's terms, Leftists get more glee out of ritually shaming and demanding apologies from realtalkers who often lose social esteem in the process. Just arresting them isn't as fun, and besides, it creates martyrs. For both political sides, there's a lesson to be learn from jailing dissidents; those people have friends and families, and eventually the frustration over repression can have big consequences. We're still white, BTW. Asians might put up with horrendous abuse, but we don't to the same degree. We're too stubbornly proud. Agnostic made the point that Iowa and Minnesota, after dutifully going well to the Democrats for decades, finally snapped. In MN, only the darker counties with either Indian res. or which lie in or near Minneapolis did Hillary win, with Trump being jobbed out of a couple (and the state as a whole) by Johnson/McMullen voters. East of the Rockies, there's no such thing as a red or blue state. It's urban/dark areas vs. rural/smaller town/white areas.

If they really start to come after us, by denying our political and speech rights beyond what they've done to us already, watch out. Chicago, Detroit, and Mpls/St. Paul are going to end up under siege. And the swpls/yuppies/dark yoofs will have no inherent bond or fighting power/stamina beyond the police/military who would fight for them. Agnostic points out that a real turning point would be the unwillingness of white cops/soldiers to round up, let alone fire upon, native born whites.

Feryl said...

Yeah, it's fatuous and counter-productive to let the MSM (which is almost entirely dominated by swpl "values" as this point) grill Trump stand-ins on a regular basis. It's not a transparency issue; Trump's team should just say "the president's actions and words speak for themselves".

The media can still reach out to whoever they wish, Trump included. Everybody is still free to talk with whomever they please. Remember how they had a cow about Trump's pressers ignoring established seating arrangements? This is an arrogant elite jockeying for status; actual reporting and journalism is irrelevant (they attack other elites not for their abuse of power and status, but rather because that elite person doesn't play by the established rules).

The Pressers have for at least 25 years become occasions for grandstanding and/or toadying among 2nd tier elites (star "reporters") in the presence of first tier elites (the President and his confidantes). And largely, the reporters are enforcers for their boss's ideology/narrative that's getting a push at the moment. No independence; like, at all. Media consolidation and generational corruption seems to have a lot to do with what's happened, but it's not the only reason the press conferences have become a joke.

Feryl said...

"The crime rate is tremendous. South Africa’s homicide rate is in the low-to-middle thirties per hundred thousand. That puts South Africa in the world’s top ten, up there with Jamaica, Honduras, and Guatemala—although not in quite the same league as America’ own St. Louis, Baltimore, and Detroit, all of which have broken fifty per hundred thousand."

I've got a theory; when you put dark skinned Arabs and Africans in a cold, overcast climate, they go nuts. They need sun and warmth; hell, even some white people don't like cold and drizzly climates. Why would blacks like it? Alternatively, the combination of high density, lots of guns, and puritan/Jewish white elites brings out the absolute worst in blacks.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

The fact that they couldn't get Hillary into the White House is proof that they have little power left. They can make some random shitlord's life miserable (see: HanAssholeSolo) but not much more than that. Even with that debacle, CNN didn't leave unscathed, even among other leftists. The fourth estate is sick and dying, getting replaced by social media where even though that is more leftist agitprop, just enough truth shines through as Facebook and Twitter play a game of whack-a-mole with the alt right.

Audacious Epigone said...

Agnostic points out that a real turning point would be the unwillingness of white cops/soldiers to round up, let alone fire upon, native born whites.

Exactly. "Greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty" doesn't play well among the young sons of the salt of the middle American earth.

Random Dude,

It's scary for him now, but down the road he could parlay that into incomparable dissident street cred.

Audacious Epigone said...


Right. My guess is something to what's being advocated here is more likely than not to be in place by 2020.

Mil-Tech Bard said...


What we are seeing is the culmination of a 25 year process of credibility collapse of the Leftist dominated MSM with non-urban "Heritage Americans".

The MSM have lost their gatekeeper monopoly in general and with that audience in particular. They didn't know it in 2016. And are in denial of the reality now.

In fact I will argue that Ronald Reagan showed that MSM gatekeeping credibility was lost in 1984 when Reagan's people used images of their campaign to burn through all the talking head verbal bandwidth direct to the American people.

The difference between 1989 and 2016 was that the Elite consensus completely lot touch with non-urban America and the "barriers to entry" for reaching those politically unaddressed Americans fell to "Pennies on the C-Note" for a social media entrepreneur like President Trump.

In a sense, Pres. Trump is forcing the MSM to cover his image with social media tweets is exactly Reagan's 1984 campaign strategy.

President Trump has the reach of a full on 1984 Reagan campaign 24/7 with his social media without spending a dime on MSM outlets like Reagan had to.

Point in fact, MSM market "credibility-toxicity" with non-urban Americans is such that Pres. Trump spending any money to be on MSM outlets would hurt his social media brand and reduce his political effectiveness.

This is full on elite paradigm shift territory, which won't be resolved until those objecting to the reality of Trump die.

Anonymous said...

"This is full on elite paradigm shift territory, which won't be resolved until those objecting to the reality of Trump die." Yes.

Yes. About that...

AE-I remember the 1980s. When the Wall went down in 89 it was a shock. There had been rumblings from time to time and other nations besides DDR had begun to relax border controls, dismantle their barriers. But understand in terms of Commie efficiency including the Iron Boot the DDR was their Top Shelf. Also Warsaw Pact elite troops, 500K of which were going to pour into West Germany. They were of course Germans, of course they were good.

But the Wall going down in 1989 was like a 9/11 level of shock but in a good way.
Remember how shitty you felt on 9/11? Completely invert it to good. That's the Wall falling. A great and bloodless Triumph. Probably no one in the West outside of Reagan's inner circle and his few trusted advisers thought the Wall coming down especially bloodlessly was possible. The Bear and the Wall was something we had grown up with, thought basically eternal. Then it was gone overnight. Honecker blinked and it was all over. >So take heart. You are watching the Neo-Liberal Politburo in DC and EU in their spastic, senile throes. I saw it before in my 20s, you will see it too.
It may not be bloodless but it couldn't go on and it didn't.

In the ensuing euphoria everyone forgot decades of first supporting followed by apologia for the USSR, from the 60s thru the 80s moral equivalence and nuclear war disarmament hysteria, and the hippies [which were a Draft riot that became a movement against any responsibility at all and petered out in the 70s]. All that was forgotten because the Wall was being torn down by Berliners on TV, and we had peace. There was no backlash against the media or the left, or really intelligence. Why? It didn't cost us anything. Now 9/11, Iraq WMD...that cost us. Financial Crisis cost us.
Cost leads to backlash, not unexpected success.


Anonymous said...

I really want to emphasize this: Take heart. You are watching the Neo-Liberal Politburo in DC and EU in their spastic, senile throes. I saw it before in my 20s, you will see it too. It may not be bloodless but it couldn't go on and it didn't.


Audacious Epigone said...

Mil Tech Bard,

I wonder if my kids will recognize CNN as a corporate force to be reckoned with, or if they'll remember it the way I remember something like Packard Bell or AOL.


That's encouraging to hear, especially from you. Trump's election isn't quite as stark as the wall coming down, but I imagine the surprise and euphoria (for more than half of Legacy America, anyway) is roughly comparable. I'll certainly never forgot the night. An honest historical accounting will show the same, I think.

Feryl said...

"But the Wall going down in 1989 was like a 9/11 level of shock but in a good way."

I was 4-5 at the time the Wall went down, but I've heard that Gen X had a much more subdued reaction to it than Boomers. Wouldn't surprise me, since the lion's share of Boomers hated communism/Soviet Russia almost as much as they hated the Nazis. Remember that Boomers are individualists and hedonists, so they wanted to destroy every last shred of collectivist ideology that originated in the early-mid 20th century (not to mention the fact that even earlier generations wanted to beat the commies pretty badly). Surveys showed that Boomers were actually more for war in Vietnam than older generations.

After the initial joy about muh freedom in former communist lands, the by then Silent and Boomer dominated Western media/political culture overwhelmingly buried what many Westerners did to these places in the 1990's. The average American, least of all commie hating Boomers, has absolutely no clue just why Putin became a beloved leader in Russia.

Likely 9/11 had a similar generational divide, with Boomers most gleefully eating up the nonsense that the terrorists hate us for our "freedom" and our "culture" (no you twits, our dumbass elites have been enabling Islamic radicalism for ages, the majority of our policies after WW2 have more often than not targeted secular strong men and left chaos which is exploited by Islamofascists coddled by the U.S.). Whether they were the ground troops or the middle aged to elderly policy elites, Silents and especially Boomers refuse to learn the right lessons about our post-WW2 misadventures. But hey, the Greatest Gen beat Hitler and a series of Gr. Gen. presidents beat back the commies, didn't they? I guess as long as the individual is worshiped, and no white country is bitten by the bug of strong gubmint, Boomers will feel just fine about continuing the asinine Middle East policies started by G.I.s and Silents after WW2..

For the record, Millennials appear to be as jaded as X-ers regarding iconically bad or good events. Where are the Gen X and Millennial driven movies/sentiment over:

- Bernie Goetz's rampage in '84
- the '86 challenger explosion
- the high profile arrest and/or trials of notorious serial killers in the later 80's/90's (Ted Bundy, Dahmer, Richard Ramirez, numerous others)
- Desert Storm
- the failed '93 (?) NYC terrorist bombing)
- The O.J. trial (yes, I know there's been a lot of material about this lately, but it seems to be late Boomer driven and done out of shameless 90's nostalgia, plus virtually every figure involved in that event was a Silent or Boomer)
- Waco and Ruby Ridge in the mid 90's
- Tim McVeigh/Oklahoma city
- Columbine in '98
- 2000's Mid-East wars

Public expressions of heavy sentiment regarding the past remain dominated by Boomers, who, of course, almost always focus on the 60's and 70's since they long ago claimed ownership of those decades (in reality, Silents dominated the 60's and Silents co-owned the 70's with the Boomers). X-ers and Millennials don't put on the same song and dance about how special their generation is, about how a given event supposedly shaped their opinion or understanding of something. When we came into the world, a lot of stuff was broke, basically. Events that proved how broken things were just didn't really matter that much. Including 9/11, which, as usual, is of primary concern to Boomers everywhere. Whereas for X-ers and Millennials who weren't intimately affected (those who didn't lose a friend or family member, or had no ties to NYC), it was yet another example of things not working out the best way they could.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

CNN as AOL about covers it, regards the collapse of media gatekeeper based profitability.

CNN is "...Dead Media Walking".

Black Death said...

An NY times reporter (or at least regular contributor) whose name escapes me habitually lied about the post-Revolution ruling class and it's atrocities."

Walter Duranty.

mgh said...

The national media is obsolete. Name me one subject where their contribution is essential.

Sid said...

For the last ten years I've relied on online sources for news, but I'd still watch cable news with my parents to get a better sense of the zeitgeist. If you only get your news online and you largely use alternative sources, relatively small quarrels can be blown out of proportion. Gamergate was huge in our neck of the woods, and it had a long-term effects in turning lots of apolitical nerds into right-wing, meming partisans, but conventional society ignored it. Similarly, what we consider to be major discords, such as the alt-right vs alt-lite within the broader community, aren't so easily visible from the outside.

But in late May I went on a trip with my parents, and Good Lord, CNN was irrelevant. I was astonished by how virtually every story was about how someone Trump knew may have been in the same room as a Russian in 2013. I had no faith in CNN as a news source to begin with, but I was shocked by how one-sided, petty, and downright irrelevant they were.

I know CNN stands out in its worthlessness, but other "mainstream" are similarly small and narrow. In 2012, for good or ill, the mainstream media either captured or shaped the zeitgeist. Now it it's just its own insignificant echo chamber, appealing to some but not longer affecting the whole of American society.

Audacious Epigone said...


It's a death spiral that they're trapped in. Where do they go from here? The strategy seems to be to hold onto the most stridently partisan viewers they have and go to war on their behalf. Maybe that buys them ten years, but what about when those geezers are all dead or in nursing homes?

Audacious Epigone said...


There hasn't even been a movie made about Columbine? Wow.

Santoculto said...

But generally, dems don't trust in CNN while cons don't trust in CNBC. This may express the increase on partisan bipolarization than with general distrust on media.