You are on page 1of 9

The Mainstream Media Is Now Obsolete

By Giordano Bruno

Neithercorp Press – 10/20/2010

The progression of human society relies upon the steady distribution of

information. The quality of that information, its accuracy and its honesty,
determines the overall health of the cultures we create. When a source of
information becomes compromised by unhealthy political ambition, social
dogma, or the strangling hands of elitism, it’s like a poison well, spreading
plague and pestilence throughout the nation, or even the world. Widely
disseminated lies inspire delirium and madness in the masses faster than
typhoid fever.

In America today, the person searching for a pure source of truth in the media
inevitably stumbles across many poison wells.

Even if they are not yet actively pursuing alternative outlets of information,
many people are aware, at least intuitively, when someone is trying to swindle
them. You can present us with the assurance of delectable sirloin steaks on
ornate silver platters, but if our faces are struck with the sickly stench of
decay, we aren’t going to bite. Through its dishonesty and its distinct lack of
substance, the mainstream media has turned up more noses than any putrid
slab of unkempt beef ever could. The raw data is merciless in regards to the
implosion of the MSM…

Top providers of print media (newspapers), including such “luminaries” as the

Washington Post and the New York Times, have plunged in readership over
the past several years. Last year, overall daily circulation for newspapers fell
10.6%, followed by another 8.7% drop so far this year:

Newspapers have shed about a quarter of their employees since 2001, and
their revenues are expected to plunge through 2012:

Talk of bankruptcy has been haunting many print media providers since 2008.
The common argument made here is that technology has rendered print
obsolete, not their quality of news, and that when newspapers finally make
the transition to the web, they will be successful again. However, those
papers that have thrown their weight and money behind web based news
have so far failed miserably. Rupert Murdoch’s news empire which includes
the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, The New York Post, and Hulu, has been
unable to draw enough readers and enough ad revenue to its websites to
maintain profits. Murdoch’s response has been to blame google and others
for “stealing his content, threatening to pull his sites from search engines
altogether and erect “paywalls” (charging just to view the sites):

Murdoch’s paywalls have been an outright financial disaster not to mention a

journalistic embarrassment:

Numerous other media sites that have instituted paywalls are meeting with
similar results.

Television news sources are no better off. ABC and CBS evening news
programs lose more and more viewers every quarter:

CNN has over the past year lost around 50% of its viewers overall. Larry King
and Anderson Cooper especially have become dead weight dragging the
network into the suffocating depths:

MSNBC, the slimy crust at the very bottom of the mainstream media
cesspool, now ranks 25th in television news. Its small audience is dwarfed by
many online alternative news sources.

Fox appears to be at the head of the pack as far as ratings are concerned,
and this is likely due to the network’s willingness to allow at least a small
amount of fact to leak through its barrier of disinformation, but, ALL
mainstream networks are in serious trouble. Blowhards like Bill O’Reilly rake
in around a million viewers or more per show on average, and this seems like
a substantial audience, however, when one examines the demographics of
TV news viewers, one finds himself rather unimpressed.

According to Neilson, the average Fox News viewer is age 65 or older! Not
that people over the age of 60 don’t count, they most certainly do, but at what
point do we acknowledge that a massive portion of the American
demographic (ages 25-54), a couple generations at least, have little to no
interest in what Fox has to say? Now, so called “progressives” try to play the
false left/right paradigm game with numbers like this, claiming that the
conservative Fox (which is establishment run and not truly conservative at all)
is an outmoded news source for dinosaurs. Actually, left leaning media has
similar problems attracting anyone younger than 50.

Keith Olbermann, for instance, has lost around 50% of his viewers in the 25-
54 demographic over the past year:

MSNBC has declined broadly among viewers 25-54. Chris Matthews

‘Hardball’ has lost around 46% over the past year:

The average age of CNN viewers is 63. MSNBC is 59. ABC is 51, and NBC is

This is not a matter of one fake political party outdoing another fake political
party. Both sides of the false paradigm media are being shunned by anyone
young enough to be exposed to alternative web news, and many older
readers are beginning to turn to the internet as well. Essentially, alternative
web media is now replacing the MSM. Not only this, but as the recession
takes its toll, it is becoming more obvious that cost cutting consumers are
much more willing to shut off their cable than they are to turn of their internet
service. Cable subscribers are now beginning to decline as internet users
continue to increase:

This is not to say that mainstream news is dead. Obviously, it still operates
today and is still entrenched as an aging mainstay of our society, even though
the model it follows will eventually lead it to disintegration. We in the
alternative media still reference mainstream sources on occasion, because it
represents the establishment (and often globalist) ideology. If that ideology
contradicts itself within its own information venues, those in alternative media
have to be ready to point it out.

Where did the MSM go wrong? Fifteen years ago, they seemed absolutely
unstoppable. Their ability to dominate information flow was unparalleled! How
could such a behemoth be crippled by a bunch of amateur journalists and
(*gasp*) bloggers? Let’s examine the reasons why so many Americans have
now placed their trust in once underground news sources above the
ramblings of corporate pundits.

The Truth Is A Right, Not A Product

The news is first and foremost a function of social progress, it is NOT meant
to be a prepackaged widget built generically on an assembly line and sold to
the masses at an outrageous markup. The mechanically domineering
corporatist philosophy does not mix with the natural and organic flow of
information distribution. It simply goes against everything human
communication engenders. Our ability to share knowledge cannot be
impeded without causing cultural anxiety. That anxiety often translates to a
desperate need for an alternative view, even if we do not recognize what
inspired our need in the first place.

The corporate media has been highly successful in the past, yet just as
corrupt, so why didn’t Americans turn away from them decades ago? It wasn’t
because Americans didn’t want to. The MSM has global backers with billions
of dollars in capital at their disposal. They have advertising budgets the size
of some small countries, and armies of marketers. Channels promote and
cross promote each other even though they pretend to stand for different
ideologies, feeding each other in a frenzy of inbred sponsorship. But none of
this means much in the end. The only advantage the MSM ever really
enjoyed was that it had no competition! (Remember, whether you watch Fox,
or CNN, you’re still only getting one point of view; the globalist point of view)
And, as with any company that has no competition, the public is forced to
consume its product without the benefit of a comparison. The internet offered
a medium free from corporate dominance, and thus, an opportunity. Look at
how quickly Americans dropped the MSM the moment there was finally
another option on the table, one that alternative journalists and analysts were
well equipped to offer.

The “Copyleft” methods of the alternative media have also bewildered the
establishment. The MSM has always seen news as a revenue source, a
commodity, something to be guarded and caged. Look at Rupert Murdoch’s
hasty bid to paywall his websites. The alternative media, in contrast, has
treated news as a right first, and a revenue source second. The goal of web
news is not necessarily to make money, its goal is to get the truth out as
quickly as possible, to as many people as possible, as accurately as possible,
and that is why we dominate over the MSM. We allow the sharing and re-
sharing of our articles, analysis, and films. We challenge our skeptics to
check our information, to put our ideas under a microscope (and they always
do, rarely finding any concrete fault in our reporting, often reverting to
strawman arguments instead). We explore the facts and possibilities the
MSM is designed to avoid.

Imagine you are stricken with cancer, and are confronted by two men. The
first is a smarmy sales associate with clammy palms who offers you a couple
of aspirin in flashy packaging and unverifiable guarantees charging you
inflated fees and no refunds. The second man offers you a cure at no charge
with no flash, asking only for your support (word-of-mouth or monetary) if and
when the cure is proven effective. Which guy are you going to shake hands

The “sharing method” appears at odds with traditional free market capitalism,
but in reality, it compliments capitalism perfectly. As I stated, information is
not a product, but insight can be. The public today does not seek out “news”,
they seek out intelligent and concise analysis on the news. They look for an
honest presentation of the facts, along with the ability to show the relevant
connections between those facts. They want the whole truth, not fabricated
processed tidbits. Not establishment talking points read from a teleprompter.
If the MSM knew how to do this, or even wanted to do this, they could easily
make money in grand ole’ American fashion, but they avoid giving the people
what they want at all costs despite the potential profits. Why is that?

Internet News Is The Open Range, MSM A Sterile Prison

One factor that does frighten some news readers when encountering the
internet is its lack of ceilings and fences; its complete denial of the traditional
boundaries and filters always present in the mainstream media. When it
comes to information consumption, many Americans are agoraphobic; when
exposed to wide open spaces, they panic. At the same time, many people
find the unbridled flow of news on the internet liberating.

Some sources of web news, like most mainstream outlets, are not reliable,
while others are fantastically precise. The internet forces you, the reader and
researcher, to check the viability of the information you encounter. You are no
longer a passive observer frying your synapses in front of a talking box, but a
participant in the realm of news, seeking out and separating that which is
factual, from that which is not. Web news users have to put individual effort
into their learning, which is, frankly, the way it should be.

Television and print media do not offer you avenues of information to explore,
they TELL you what to believe and feel, or they simply reinforce false
assumptions you have already made about the world, instead of challenging
you to think beyond your cushy comfort bubble. It is far easier to sit back and
accept MSM fodder, but also utterly unfulfilling and intellectually destabilizing.
People whose only information exposure is through cable news seem to quite
literally devolve as human beings to the point of base machine instinct.
Strangely, in this way, corporate media creates a collective feeling of
personal isolation in the populace. We feel drawn to the MSM because it
offers the illusion of community, of connection to those around us, but in
reality, it actually degrades our ability to think clearly and honestly, making
connection to each other impossible. The result is a stewed mass of humanity
all with the same skewed world view, but ironically, no comradery and no
common ground.

Web news offers participation, it offers community, and it presses us to not

only question everything, but to actually go out and answer our own questions
instead of waiting for someone with a possible agenda to do it for us. The
MSM cannot possibly compete with this dynamic.

Bias, Lies, And The Status Quo

The mainstream media is not nor has it ever been a “supplier” of news. In
fact, the MSM is instead a “washer” of news, a turbine of scrubbing
sandpaper and soap suds designed to remove those “dirty” bits of information
that contradict the status quo. News wires like the AP or Reuters remove
about 90% of the truth from their reporting, or combine the truth with biased
opinion in an attempt to minimize its effect. Cable news then takes that
information and skims out even more valuable data. The average MSM
watching pop-culture zombie-bot is probably only exposed to about 1% truth
in a single day, if he even pays attention to that much. For those people who
couldn’t care less about anything beyond their immediate existence, 1% is
more than enough. However, quite a few of us are aware of our surroundings,
and extremely unsatisfied with this arrangement.

The mistake many Americans make is that they assume the corporate news
is a “service”, a service to the public. It is not. The MSM attends to the
interests of its shareholders and its CEO’s, and nothing more. The
mainstream media is not even required by law to be factual in its reporting of
information unless it is involved in defamation, and even those checks and
balances are falling by the wayside. The saga of journalists Jane Akre and
Steve Wilson and their fight against Fox and Monsanto’s suppression of their
story on rBGH growth hormone’s cancer causing effects proved that the
higher rungs of our legal system are completely cooperative in the MSM’s
attempts to censor pertinent information, or even to lie outright:

Those alternative analysts who somehow slip through the corporate news net
only seem to find ridicule and contempt for the facts they offer. In the video
below, Peter Schiff attempts to warn the public back in 2006 of the impending
market crash and housing crisis, laying out exactly how the mortgage
collapse would commence. Instead of examining his logic rationally, the Fox
News pundits laugh and shout over him. I wonder if these clowns are
laughing now:

The constant attacks by the MSM (from Fox to MSNBC) on any

Constitutionalist movement or organization, from the Tea Party to
Oathkeepers, or any anti-establishment ideology period, have revealed a
complete disregard for the objectivity journalists are supposed to pride
themselves on. Ridiculous and completely unsupported accusations against
Liberty Movement candidates like Ron Paul and Rand Paul, ranging from
racism to extremism and terrorism, are now the norm. And they wonder why
everyone is turning their televisions off!? How long can you watch a bunch of
overgrown children in suits sling schoolyard taunts from satellite to satellite
against honorable men who are barely given the chance to defend
themselves in an equal forum? Perhaps my attention span is short, or maybe
some people are easily entertained, but most of us get bored with this kind of
pathetic display rather quickly.

The bottom line is that the MSM is working towards the goal of suppression,
not revelation, and Americans are beginning to understand this. Why bother
watching a 10 minute interview between MSNBC and Ron Paul or Rand Paul
with odd time delays, video edits, Alinsky tactics, and circular logic? We learn
nothing because the interview was not designed by MSNBC to explore the
truth; it was designed to undermine it. Laughably, it is the establishment
media that has called for regulations and gatekeepers to be placed on the
alternative media due to a lack of “accountability” in the case of web news:

What the hell does the MSM know about accountability? Or even fact based
reporting? These people are a disgrace to journalism and they have the
audacity to demand professionalism from the alternative media?! I can’t
possibly count how many inaccurate or fabricated mainstream stories I have
covered and dissected in my years writing for the Liberty Movement. Where is
all the outrage and indignance over those fallacies? Which news source is
truly guilty of duplicity?

Web media is not in need of “gatekeepers”. Our readers should be capable of

checking our information and deciding for themselves whether it is reliable or
disingenuous. In the case of the MSM, we ARE the gatekeepers! They
obviously don’t hold their own reporting to any sincere criteria…

Citizen Journalists, Citizen Justice

The alternative media represents an incredible paradigm shift, not only in the
way we take part in the spread of information, but also in the way we perceive
our role in world events. No longer are you and I confined to the guidelines
and rules of the elitist system, a system which is ultimately intended to harm
us, not help us. Today, we have tools at our disposal which render the old
constrictive methods of news distribution completely obsolete. Today, right at
their fingertips, each and every American has the chance to actively
contribute to the greater pool of knowledge that eventually leads to the death
of deceptions and the promotion of social progress.

Nothing is perfect, including the web. There will always be disinformation to

sort through, regardless of any new technology or regulation. This is part of
living in a free society. We do not rely on government or corporate entities to
set the standards of truth, we set those standards for ourselves, and if we fail,
it will only be because we set our standards too low.

I find it interesting that establishment proponents always use the proclamation

of the “greater good” as a pretext for suppressing anything which threatens
their power structure. But let’s think about this for a second; what is the
greater good in this instance? Is it in the interest of the greater good to control
and censor the internet because an inaccurate news story MIGHT be spread
there? To impose “protections” on people because they are supposedly too
lazy or too stupid? Or do we find greater good in free information, and
developing a public mature enough to research the facts for themselves? Is it
really better to maintain a monopolistic system of news that has been proven
time after time to be faulty, propaganda driven, and shamelessly
oversimplified? Or, is it to our benefit to provide another outlet, a more level
playing field, and see which one better fills the needs of the citizenry? When
we stop and consider what the actual “greater good” would be, we find that it
does not at all coincide with the desires of the establishment.

If we need anything at this point in history, it is the citizen journalist. We need

not one corporately sponsored message, but millions of independent voices
all searching for the truth in their own unique way. Only then can we retrieve
our American identity, and achieve a legitimate sense of justice in this
country. Great changes begin with a revolution of ideas, an individual will, and
a multitude of open eyes. The internet is a catalyst for such an event, the kind
that occurs perhaps once in a millennium. We cannot allow it to be vilified by
swindlers or dominated by tyrants under any circumstance, otherwise, we will
lose our initiative, and along with it, our voice.

You can contact Giordano Bruno at: