5 ms·

> a random article on the BBC and Alex Jones saying the kids in Sandy Hook were crisis actors A tiny fraction of people follow Alex Jones and the vast majority

> a random article on the BBC and Alex Jones saying the kids in Sandy Hook were crisis actors A tiny fraction of people follow Alex Jones and the vast majority disagree (or have no idea who he is). I have yet to see someone who actually believes the kids in Sandy Hook were crisis actors. The reality is that the US corporate media (literally billion dollar media companies like NY Times or WaPo) are angry about losing their monopoly on what the "truth" is. Now, they have to compete with independent journalists publishing on Substack/YouTube (read how critical the NY Times is of Substack. It's absurd.). They're trying to get YouTube/Facebook/Twitter to censor anyone who's not "an expert", where they get to decide who counts as an expert. So, the media is trying to push a narrative that Alex Jones is a bigger threat than he really is. They're also trying to paint all independent media as Alex Jones-type so they can maintain their monopoly on the truth. Meanwhile, they continue to run million dollar marketing campaigns where they're trying convince everyone that they're the truth ("Democracy Dies in Darkness"). Frankly, the media did the exact same thing with Trump in 2016 (and continue to do so). Trump was a fringe character during the beginning of the RNC for the 2016 election and Jeb Bush was the frontrunner. The media (left especially) proceeded to talk about Trump 24/7 and give him unlimited free air time (and they got a ratings bump in return). They took someone who was a fringe character and made him seem like the mainstream. The Streisand Effect kicked in and Trump immediately shot up in the polls. Then, when Trump ended up winning, the media pretended they had 0 culpability and spun up a false narrative that the Russian interference gave Trump the victory (The Russians interfered, but their interference wasn't what swung the election, it was a laughable attempt if you read their strategies. The media talking about Trump 24/7 was what gave him the victory).

criddell 4y ago
> I have yet to see someone who actually believes the kids in Sandy Hook were crisis actors. Listen to the testimony given by some of the Sandy Hook families during the Alex Jones trial. It's heartbreaking.
- LewisVerstappen 4y ago
  Ok? Again, this is an extremely fringe view. There are a couple thousand people who believe the sandy hook children were actors. The rest of the US thinks those people are abhorrent. Censoring independent media and giving the US corporate press a monopoly on truth as a response to this incident (or other fringe incidents like this) would be a massive mistake.
  - criddell 4y ago
    I don’t think the prosecution of Alex Jones is an example of independent media being censored. He harmed some people with lies and is being held accountable. Nobody here is suggesting US corporate press has a monopoly on truth.
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
Thank you for stating it so clearly. If the media was not building narratives and, in effect, household recognition of some profiles around none of this would be an issue. But we have narratives, because they do sell and old media has to compete with new entrants that are not as bogged down by quaint rules that governs old media ( and that includes stream of Alex Jones ). I do not blame just the old media though. They just responded to the reality the best way they could. There is a reason most articles are now a litany of clickbaity titles. I blame us.
zzzeek 4y ago
> The media (left especially) proceeded to talk about Trump 24/7 and give him unlimited free air time (and they got a ratings bump in return). They took someone who was a fringe character and made him seem like the mainstream. The Streisand Effect kicked in and Trump immediately shot up in the polls. your post is chock full of simply ridiculous claims and this one is the crowning piece. please supply *any* actual documentation for any of these made up ideas. Trump shot up in popularity because he ran in primaries, he had plenty of money to do so as well as a lot of backers (both domestic and foreign, we were to learn) all around the country and conservative voters liked his ideas (mostly the anti-immigrant rhetoric, which is the oldest song in the conservative catalog, as well as a deep well of hatred for HRC that had been developed by conservative interests for literally decades) the best, plain and simple. FOX news would have built him up ahead of time as they are a right wing propaganda outlet that most certainly did want to create a Trump candidacy, sure. however "Left wing media" or even "mainstream" media outside of FOX did not "pre-choose" Trump ahead of his popularity by any means. As he continued beating everyone in polling and later in actual primaries by crazy numbers, the (non-FOX) media appropriately noticed and reported on it, and he became the center of attention as is actually appropriate. There is absolutely nothing new about that in conservative politics (except for the novel opportunity to run against a female candidate who had been built up as a focal point of anger for 25 years). The bigger problem with this notion that Trump was "fringe outside the mainstream" is this attempt to distance US conservatism from the deeply nativist, anti-immigrant stance of the Trump presidency. But that is exactly a core value of the conservative base, which I have personally observed for my whole life amongst the many conservatives in my large extended family as well as in the communities I live in. He is exactly what "regular" conservatives want. Trying to pin it on a "the media made us do it!" is a dangerous lie in that regard.
- LewisVerstappen 4y ago
  > your post is chock full of simply ridiculous claims State exactly which claims are ridiculous and why they're ridiculous. > please supply any actual documentation for any of these made up ideas Here's a study by the Shorenstein Center on Media/Politics/Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. "The report shows that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in the polls." "Neither of these indicators, however, explains Trump’s coverage. When his news coverage began to shoot up, he was not high in the trial-heat polls and had raised almost no money. Upon entering the race, he stood much taller in the news than he stood in the polls.[8] By the end of the invisible primary, he was high enough in the polls to get the coverage expected of a frontrunner. But he was lifted to that height by an unprecedented amount of free media." "The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone." "The Shorenstein Center study is based on an analysis of thousands of news statements by CBS, Fox, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. The study’s data were provided by Media Tenor, a firm that specializes in the content analysis of news coverage." https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/ https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016... Of course, you provide 0 "documentation" for any of your own claims and are just dismissing whatever I said as "made up". > As he continued beating everyone by crazy numbers, the media appropriately noticed and reported on it, and he became the center of attention as is actually appropriate Completely false. You provide 0 evidence whatsoever. I gave you a study conducted by the Harvard Kennedy School that shows the exact opposite. The media gave Trump disproportionate airtime at the start of the primary when he was polling far behind other republican candidates.

criddell 4y ago

> I have yet to see someone who actually believes the kids in Sandy Hook were crisis actors. Listen to the testimony given by some of the Sandy Hook families during the Alex Jones trial. It's heartbreaking.

LewisVerstappen 4y ago
Ok? Again, this is an extremely fringe view. There are a couple thousand people who believe the sandy hook children were actors. The rest of the US thinks those people are abhorrent. Censoring independent media and giving the US corporate press a monopoly on truth as a response to this incident (or other fringe incidents like this) would be a massive mistake.
- criddell 4y ago
  I don’t think the prosecution of Alex Jones is an example of independent media being censored. He harmed some people with lies and is being held accountable. Nobody here is suggesting US corporate press has a monopoly on truth.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

Thank you for stating it so clearly. If the media was not building narratives and, in effect, household recognition of some profiles around none of this would be an issue. But we have narratives, because they do sell and old media has to compete with new entrants that are not as bogged down by quaint rules that governs old media ( and that includes stream of Alex Jones ). I do not blame just the old media though. They just responded to the reality the best way they could. There is a reason most articles are now a litany of clickbaity titles. I blame us.

zzzeek 4y ago

> The media (left especially) proceeded to talk about Trump 24/7 and give him unlimited free air time (and they got a ratings bump in return). They took someone who was a fringe character and made him seem like the mainstream. The Streisand Effect kicked in and Trump immediately shot up in the polls. your post is chock full of simply ridiculous claims and this one is the crowning piece. please supply *any* actual documentation for any of these made up ideas. Trump shot up in popularity because he ran in primaries, he had plenty of money to do so as well as a lot of backers (both domestic and foreign, we were to learn) all around the country and conservative voters liked his ideas (mostly the anti-immigrant rhetoric, which is the oldest song in the conservative catalog, as well as a deep well of hatred for HRC that had been developed by conservative interests for literally decades) the best, plain and simple. FOX news would have built him up ahead of time as they are a right wing propaganda outlet that most certainly did want to create a Trump candidacy, sure. however "Left wing media" or even "mainstream" media outside of FOX did not "pre-choose" Trump ahead of his popularity by any means. As he continued beating everyone in polling and later in actual primaries by crazy numbers, the (non-FOX) media appropriately noticed and reported on it, and he became the center of attention as is actually appropriate. There is absolutely nothing new about that in conservative politics (except for the novel opportunity to run against a female candidate who had been built up as a focal point of anger for 25 years). The bigger problem with this notion that Trump was "fringe outside the mainstream" is this attempt to distance US conservatism from the deeply nativist, anti-immigrant stance of the Trump presidency. But that is exactly a core value of the conservative base, which I have personally observed for my whole life amongst the many conservatives in my large extended family as well as in the communities I live in. He is exactly what "regular" conservatives want. Trying to pin it on a "the media made us do it!" is a dangerous lie in that regard.

LewisVerstappen 4y ago
> your post is chock full of simply ridiculous claims State exactly which claims are ridiculous and why they're ridiculous. > please supply any actual documentation for any of these made up ideas Here's a study by the Shorenstein Center on Media/Politics/Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. "The report shows that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in the polls." "Neither of these indicators, however, explains Trump’s coverage. When his news coverage began to shoot up, he was not high in the trial-heat polls and had raised almost no money. Upon entering the race, he stood much taller in the news than he stood in the polls.[8] By the end of the invisible primary, he was high enough in the polls to get the coverage expected of a frontrunner. But he was lifted to that height by an unprecedented amount of free media." "The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone." "The Shorenstein Center study is based on an analysis of thousands of news statements by CBS, Fox, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. The study’s data were provided by Media Tenor, a firm that specializes in the content analysis of news coverage." https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/ https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016... Of course, you provide 0 "documentation" for any of your own claims and are just dismissing whatever I said as "made up". > As he continued beating everyone by crazy numbers, the media appropriately noticed and reported on it, and he became the center of attention as is actually appropriate Completely false. You provide 0 evidence whatsoever. I gave you a study conducted by the Harvard Kennedy School that shows the exact opposite. The media gave Trump disproportionate airtime at the start of the primary when he was polling far behind other republican candidates.