By Joe Martino
In personal development, one can’t change something about themselves until they are first made aware of the pattern or problem they are experiencing.
Once they know, steps can be taken to adjust, better themselves, or grow beyond the problem.
The same can be said for how our society functions. After all, we, as individuals, are a microcosm of our collective story.
In that sense, I firmly believe that if we don’t understand how our world works, we don’t stand a chance of making it a better place as we don’t know what problem we are solving.
The first step towards uncovering the truth is re-examining our positions and embracing uncertainty.
PROPAGANDA PRODUCES NARRATIVE
In my previous piece on propaganda, I talked about how governments distribute a “story” or “narrative” about current events to rally the public behind an idea.
Through this propaganda, people believe something about how the world works, even if it’s not true.
Mainstream media (MSM) is the mouthpiece that connects the government to the people.
It has incredible power in shaping public opinion; governments and influential people know this.
This is how the masses believe they live in a democracy and that government is doing its best to fight enemies.
Or that government keeps people safe through authoritarian actions and attempts to create societal wellness. Don’t question the government, or else you’re a conspiracy theorist.
This narrative is all told through mainstream media. Control mainstream media, and you control the masses’ perception.
CONTROLLING MAINSTREAM MEDIA
There are many ways in which mainstream media can be controlled. A common belief is that newsroom directors constantly get phone calls from government people telling them not to run specific stories.
This may be true for a small portion of MAJOR stories, as we saw with the government program Project Mockingbird.
A 1991 declassified document from the CIA archives shows the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had a close relationship with mainstream media and academia.
The document states that the CIA task force “now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation” and that “this has helped us turn some ‘intelligence failure’ stories into ‘intelligence success” stories,’ and has contributed to the accuracy of countless others.”
It admits the agency had “persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests or jeopardized sources and methods.”
We learned through Covid that this sort of thing still happens, especially with powerful stories. But for the most part, this isn’t how media is controlled, in my opinion.
Another common idea is that “all of the journalists at The New York Times or CBC know they are lying.” I don’t think this is true.
Most of these people fully believe in what they publish and are more regulated by a news culture and environment built around avoiding certain conclusions.
They also tend to perform unbalanced investigations into specific subjects.
The fear of losing access is part of how news culture is built and what stops journalists from following their gut.
WHAT IS ACCESS?
Access is simple: a news outlet can gain access to specific individuals like politicians, influential business people, or celebrities based on their reputation and knowledge that they won’t “cross the line” or surprise guests.
In this case, “the line” is asking tough questions or holding people accountable. Cross the line, and word gets out that influential people shouldn’t associate with those brands as readily.
Imagine during the Canadian Freedom Convoy if the CBC decided they would ask Justin Trudeau very tough questions about the abuse of power, lies, and hatred he was disseminating towards unvaccinated people.
You can bet that the CBC would be fearful Trudeau’s admin would give them less access to early stories, updates, interviews, and so on if they don’t “play ball” with Trudeau.
If the CBC doesn’t play ball, they will be late on stories, their competition will get things first, and the CBC will play catch up all the time.
This isn’t good for business.
Access is directly tied to the profitability of many news organizations. Thus, it becomes a race to the bottom dynamic of kissing the ass of those in power and not upsetting them so you can compete amongst other news organizations to access stories and interviews first – or at all.
A PRIME EXAMPLE
This concept is well demonstrated in Kim Iverson’s recent interview with Alan Dershowitz on her show. To note, Iverson’s program is independent and not considered mainstream media.
Iverson interviewed Dershowitz about Trump’s looming arrest. During the interview, she also asked him about his ties to Epstein and whether or not Epstein had ties to Mossad.
Dershowitz went on to provide short, weak answers to the questions but eventually became annoyed with Iverson questioning him about Epstein.
Dershowitz said:
“Are you used to having people come on your show to talk about one subject and then sandbagging them on another subject without warning? It’s nice to know you do that. I have nothing to hide, and I’m happy to talk about this, but I’m used to more ethical journalism.”
Iverson states that her team notified the people who booked Dershowitz onto the show that she would ask about Epstein.
Dershowitz said they never told him and ended the interview by saying,
“[…] it’s the last time you’ll have me on your show, so take advantage of it.”
Iverson provided proof that Dershowitz’s team was notified about upcoming Epstein questions.
(Kim Iverson’s recent interview with Alan Dershowitz, Epstein question at 9.15 minutes)
Iverson asked Dershowitz tough questions that were significantly less “softball” than he would get from mainstream media. He was also less prepared to tailor his answers perfectly because of an internal team mistake.
As a result, he won’t go on her show again.
She lost access to him, and this message could spread throughout, causing her to lose access to others.
Simply put, the game is rigged. Play ball the way influential people want you to, or you don’t get to play.
Put another way, ask tough questions that are “out of bounds” in an authoritarian culture, and you’ll stop getting interviews. Why, then, would someone ask tough questions?
But this instance also reveals something important: influential people know the questions first before they appear on news shows.
Does this make sense? Does this create the opportunity for trustworthy and honest answers?
THE PURPOSE OF MEDIA IS LARGELY LOST, BUT SLOWLY REPAIRING
All of us who wonder why mainstream journalists don’t ask specific questions, even when they are strikingly obvious, should consider the concept of access.
Every person listed on Epstein’s flight log could have been asked to explain themselves by The New York Times or Washington Post, but they weren’t because that’s not allowed.
However, those organizations can forgo good journalistic practices to push COVID fear and propaganda all day because that will only gain them more accessible in the end.
Thus, mainstream media is controlled by the threat of losing access.
Does it make sense that a person should know all the questions they will be asked before coming on a show?
Does it make sense that they should be allowed to prepare those answers fully? Doesn’t that give a profound opportunity to deceive?
Why is this accepted as “ethical journalism” when in reality it can protect influential people?
A WAY FORWARD
This is why I believe we must point out how mainstream media has no incentive to tell the truth and point out how mainstream journalism works.
We must also illustrate how the mainstream media is wrong or misleading on specific subjects.
It is often too difficult to prove EXACTLY what is true because that can be incredibly hard to know, but to critique the MSM in ways that reveal their deception can help people begin granting less legitimacy to MSM and start embracing more uncertainty.
I believe more and more people are seeing how corrupt mainstream media is, and perhaps we are getting closer to a tipping point.
As a result, even The New York Times is trying to convince its audience they are ‘independent journalism.’
This post was published first here.