The Mainstream Media: Whether to Laugh or Cry

Is the media's biased coverage just sheer buffoonery, or cunning treachery?

media circus

Does anyone trust the mainstream media anymore? A mishap on a recent episode of The Colbert Show would suggest not. The incident in question occurred when Stephen Colbert, interviewing CNN Reporter Kaitlan Collins, began one of his questions by remarking that “[CNN] are objective over there … you just report the news as it is.” The audience responded with sustained laughter, the intensity and duration of which was on par with their reactions to any of the episode’s primary laugh lines. It quickly became clear, through Colbert’s nervous handwringing and Collins’ stunned response, this line was intended as neither comedy nor irony, but a low-grade attempt at the gaslighting increasingly perpetuated by our media circus. As telling as it was amusing, the incident emphasized a reality that some of us have long been anticipating: the mainstream media is a joke, and now, the public knows it.  

Like Colbert’s audience (most of whom were presumably liberal or left-leaning) many of us on the political right-wing also laugh off the plight of the mainstream media. Indeed, there is certainly something entertaining about the contrast between the media’s self-importance and alleged integrity, and the fact their agenda-driven inanity is plainly visible to even the moderate skeptic. Amusement aside, the reality is the American public has been badly betrayed by an institution intended to play an integral role in a functional democratic society.

The Metrics of Betrayal

‘Institutional Betrayal’ is a psychological term used to describe an institution’s abuse of the trust placed in it by its constituency, and the resultant impact on the constituent group’s psychological stability and well-being. Institutions historically responsible for such betrayal usually share common characteristics, which facilitate the abuse while preventing its discovery and publicization. Though the phenomenon may occur at any level (global, national, community), it is a requirement that the institution “foster a sense of trust or dependency from their members (often both).”[1] These institutions benefit from heightened status or prestige that demands authority while elevating them above accountability to their constituents. And crucially, these institutions often develop priorities that deviate from, or even contradict, the well-being of their dependents and the missions for which they were originally formed[2]. Sound familiar?

But detecting media bias is similar to Justice Potter Stewart’s threshold test for obscenity—”you know it when you see it”. Absent a true smoking gun, it is difficult to know definitively whether the media intends to mislead the public or whether the individuals within the media are just reeeally biased—their conception of objective reality distorted and their reverberating beliefs repeatedly amplified within an echo chamber of their own making. After all, in a free society, individuals cannot be judged for viewing an issue from a biased perspective, and thus relaying it to the public with corresponding spin.

However, whether their bias is intentional is not really the question here. Any institution of large-ish size will inevitably acquire a few bad actors and, purely as a result of time and turnover, slowly deviate from its original purpose and/or ethics, at least to some extent. An institution worthy of the public’s trust will have a robust framework to not only minimize such deviations, but to respond appropriately and course-correct when they do occur. Psychological literature thus measures Institutional Betrayal not through tallying isolated or even repeated instances of wrongdoing, but by examining the institution’s “omission of protective, preventative, or responsive … actions.”[3] The extent of betrayal attributable to an institution is exposed through certain patterns of behavior, including:

·         normalizing and failing to prevent abuses

·         supporting cover-ups and producing inadequate responses to abuses, and

·         punishing victims and whistleblowers.

Though not a public institution in the traditional sense, the establishment media certainly provides a public service and is responsible for—and should be judged by—the objectivity of the methods by which it operates: namely, its framework and response protocol. The above-mentioned indicators of betrayal can be converted, for the media context, into three tenets, all of which would be present in a truly objective media: (1) transparency, (2) allowance (but preferably encouragement) of a multitude of viewpoints, and (3) admissions of culpability and error. A media that adheres to these strictures need not be completely unbiased nor correct in all its assertions and prognostications but can still retain the public trust. Unfortunately for the American public, our mainstream media has fallen short in all three areas.

Synchronized Narratives: Ivermectin and Biden Senility-Gate

The establishment media’s violation of all three requirements for public trust is visible in the concerted action produced to ‘push’ preferred narratives and to quash unfavorable ones. For example, in September 2021, after Joe Rogan revealed he was using ivermectin to combat his COVID-19 infection, every media outlet simultaneously erupted in a chorus of anger and derision. Numerous outlets, including CNN, NBC, the Washington Post, NPR, the Rolling Stone, the Guardian, and the Hollywood Reporter, denounced his use of the medicine in near-perfect unison[4]. Strangely, every one of these publications attacked Rogan from the same angle and even used the same misleading term to describe ivermectin (“horse dewormer”) portraying Rogan as an eccentric witch doctor peddling untried and unsafe animal medications. The response was notable not only because these publications shared the same inaccuracy (ivermectin is an FDA-approved treatment for multiple human conditions[5]), but because of the precision timing—the publications were all released on the same day, an eerie example of the lock-step synchronicity with which the establishment media forces narratives and silences dissenters. Given that a quick Google search would have revealed that ivermectin is a common human medication, and studies had already produced support for its potential efficacy as a COVID treatment[6], it is intuitive that each media outlet’s framing of the issue had come from a common source of instruction, necessitating some level of collaboration.

More recent examples of synchronous yet purportedly independent media coverage can be found in the media’s (pre-debate) assessment of Joe Biden’s mental acuity earlier this year. Coverage from CNN, the Hill, the Washington Post, and MSNBC was all along the same line: Biden was ‘sharp as a tack’ and any evidence to the contrary was attributable to Republicans’ use of ‘cheap fakes’ (also, where did that stupid term come from?)[7][7a]. If the truth (that Biden’s a walking cadaver) had not been unequivocally exposed on the Presidential debate stage, the media would have continued perpetuating this lie. Instead, at the exact moment the Democrat establishment began their coup to remove Biden as nominee, the media viciously turned on him. This was a necessary turnaround—not only because Democrats needed to swap Biden for a nominee with detectable vital signs, but because Biden had betrayed the media by exposing their blatant lies about his virility and good health. Hence, the media proceeded to increase the pressure on Ol’ Joe, insistent that they, like you, had been so badly deceived.

The problem is, it is not just unlikely that so many different media sources could have badly overestimated Biden’s mental fitness—statistically, it’s impossible that every ‘objective’ news outlet could have arrived at the identical conclusion through independent investigation. Apparently, at the time of the debate, Biden had not convened a meeting of his Cabinet for over nine months.[8] Inside sources confirmed Biden’s decline was clearly detectable behind closed doors[9]. Months earlier, special counsel Robert Hur had recommended against prosecuting Biden for his mishandling of classified documents due primarily to his lack of mental capacity[10]. Yet, prior to the debate, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough claimed it was his impression, after spending “a couple hours” with Biden, this was “The Best Biden Ever.”[11] Admitting to their cover-up was clearly off the table, so the media took the only option that would preserve the illusion of their objectivity, framing themselves and the American public as co-victims of Biden’s deception. Sure enough, immediately following the debate, “panic” became the new buzzword, and not a single news source stood behind Biden or tried to write this off as ‘just a bad night’. Clearly the narrative had to be changed, and they all got the memo.

Transparency

As discussed, there is nothing inherently wrong with several networks approaching any given issue from the same perspective. The violation of transparency lies in the media’s insistence on pushing the ‘illusion of disconcert’—the lie that each offshoot of the established media institution is independent from the others, rather than acting in concert. An agenda-driven media purporting to be objective and independent may be called many things—deceitful, propagandistic, cunning—but transparent, it is not. On rare occasions when objective reality rears its head publicly and definitively, as was the case with the ivermectin story and ‘Best Biden Ever’ scandal, the concerted action is uncovered, and the veil of transparency is pierced.

Another glaring example is found in the media’s unquestioned submission to the Harris/Walz campaign strategy since Harris replaced Biden as the Democratic nominee for president earlier this Summer. The idea that Kamala Harris could succeed to the presidency on her own merit with a straightforward campaign is obviously a ridiculous one, as proven by her feeble attempt to win the Democratic nomination in 2020 and by her abysmal ratings as Vice President. So, the Democrats formulated a pragmatic campaign strategy: give the public no policy information or soundbites from Harris until after the election itself, run a rehearsed and milquetoast campaign bereft of live interviews, avoid all challenging questions, and ignore her glaring hypocrisies. The problem with this strategy should be that it requires full media compliance to achieve success. For the Democrats, this is no problem at all—not a single mainstream media outlet has remotely questioned the Democrats’ unprecedented circumvention of the democratic nomination process, let alone pressured Kamala to agree to an additional debate or to sit down for a substantive, challenging interview. Contrary to what the media would have you believe; this is not how an election cycle typically proceeds. Such is the absence of any kind of meaningful journalistic pressure exerted on Harris, the only explanation is some kind of agreement—tacit or otherwise—between her campaign and the media partisans. That the common voter is led to believe this is simply ‘business as usual’ is not only a huge slap in the face, it belies the media’s disregard for any kind of transparent or honest operative structure. 

Variety of Viewpoints

The Ivermectin and Biden Acuity examples also illustrate the media’s complete intolerance for contrary viewpoints. In Rogan’s case, the media made it clear, both to Rogan and onlookers, that any attempt to question the mainstream narrative or posit alternative views on COVID-19 treatments would directly jeopardize your career. But the media’s responsive bludgeoning is not unique to the pandemic era—earlier this year, prior to the Presidential debate, the Wall Street Journal dared to meekly and speculatively intimate that Biden’s mental acuity may be “show[ing] signs of slipping behind closed doors.” CNN, with typical mindless adherence to the party line, immediately published a piece attacking the article’s journalistic integrity and sources[12], making it abundantly clear to any potential dissenters that any attempt to posit this viewpoint would be met with condemnation and censure, thus diminishing the public’s perception of the guilty publication and potentially harming the career of the journalist responsible for any such piece.

To obscure their myopic stances, the media establishment employs a tactic long used by oppressive regimes to generate a veneer of even-handedness. Similar to the way the Democrats will obscure their antisemitism by trotting out ‘Jews’ Bernie Sanders and Doug Emhoff (and more recently Josh Shapiro) to whitewash their pro-Hamas sentiment, CNN and the like commonly parade supposed ‘Republicans’ to endorse Democrat candidates and ideologies. Most recently, ‘Republican’ Ana Navarro, CNN senior political commentator and co-host of "The View", became a host at this year’s Democratic National Convention and proudly endorsed Kamala Harris. Indeed, Joe Scarborough, (AKA, Joe ‘F*** you if you don’t believe this is the best Biden’ Scarborough) is often introduced by MSNBC as a former Republican Congressman (and yes, it’s true). This tactic is a deceptive way to garner credibility and give the impression of viewpoint-variety while preserving the echo chamber and forwarding the leftist agenda.

Admissions of Culpability/Error

The Trump era has given rise to innumerable instances where the media have clearly been barking up the wrong tree, whether unintentionally or as a political tactic. As we have seen in the case of ‘Biden Senility-gate’, when factual, definitive evidence emerges to contradict their chosen narrative, rather than acknowledge it and accept accountability, the media prefers to either deflect blame onto others or boldly double down in the face of the evidence (often both). A glaring example occurred when Special Counsel John Durham released the findings of his investigation into the Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax in May 2023[13]. By then, the media had been pushing the veracity of the hoax for nearly seven years, despite a complete lack of concrete support. After years of inquiry, Durham concluded (1) the FBI had never had any basis to launch the Russia collusion investigation against Donald Trump; (2) the FBI had “failed to follow up on intelligence reports that Hillary Clinton had approved a scheme to manufacture the Russia hoax” and (3) Clinton’s campaign had “funded opposition research to supply the FBI and media with the false narrative”.

This was nothing short of a bombshell revelation, revealing the twisted agenda and nefarious priorities of multiple supposedly neutral U.S. institutions, all in a single report. You may be wondering why the Durham report was unable to capture the public imagination; why it failed to spark Watergate 2.0; why the unelected ‘fourth branch’ of American government remains yet un-toppled. For an answer, you need look no further than MSNBC’s summary of said report: “It wasn’t the most riveting of hearings, but here’s the bottom line: John Durham found nothing to discredit special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.” Oof. Some publications attacked Durham personally[14], while others boldly asserted that Durham’s findings, somehow, actually supported the validity of Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Russia collusion hoax.[15] Safe in the knowledge that not a single percentage point of the public had actually taken the time to read any portion of the Durham report, media outlets could shamelessly paint it any way they wanted. And if a non-establishment journalist published a contrary summary? Then, to the average plebian, it becomes a classic case of ‘he said, she said’ and, let’s face it, those are easier to ignore altogether. So we did.

Conclusion: Explaining the Scramble to Censor

The ultimate question is: what percentage of the public is aware of this betrayal? For many years, the sole source of media accountability has been… the media. An institution successful in covering up their deception is ultimately able to get away with it and continue practicing it. While this may produce a misinformed society, it wouldn’t result in distrust by the public. As in the common apocrypha, if no one had told the emperor he was naked, he would never have known he had been misled and would have continued nakedly trusting his deceitful subjects for years to come. Though this is slowly changing among certain segments of the public due to the proliferation of alternative media sources, still only one-third of Americans have learned to trust podcast news sources more than the mainstream news media.[16]

In theory, as alternative news sources slowly reveal each concrete example of institutional mass-deception, the public will increasingly gain cognizance of the betrayal being enacted on them. This effect is unique to the age of the internet and the variety it brings, and is visible in statistical showings, which reveal a year-on-year widening of institutional distrust, culminating in all-time-low levels of trust in the establishment media.[17] Though this trend is encouraging, the corresponding follow-up question is whether the mainstream media can hang on long enough for leftist censorship, through their ‘campaigns on disinformation’ and non-governmental diminution of free-speech principles[18][18a][18b], to quell the free market of information, thus re-establishing the unquestioned supremacy of the media establishment. Hopefully not…