Global Media Wars

There’s a rather fascinating media war being fought these days between the established mainstream “dead tree” media and rival new upstart internet media outlets. Here’s the NYT/Boston Globe laying down a barrage on upstart Infowarrior Alex Jones:

Is Donald Trump taking his cues from Alex Jones?

By Jim Rutenberg NEW YORK TIMES FEBRUARY 21, 2017

Way back on Friday, President Donald Trump declared that several news organizations — ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, The New York Times — were “the enemy of the American people.” You know who’s not the enemy, in his book?

Alex Jones.

Jones, in case you aren’t aware, is the conspiracy-theorizing, flame-throwing nationalistic radio and internet star who’s best known for suggesting that Sept. 11 was an inside job, that the Sandy Hook school shooting was “completely fake” and that the phony Clinton child-sex trafficking scandal known as Pizzagate warranted serious investigation (which one Facebook fan took upon himself to do, armed with an AR-15).

Essentially it’s a war between the old media that was against (and still is against) Donald Trump, and the new media that was all for him. And since Donald Trump’s election as US President, the new media have been in ascendancy over the old media – an event comparable to the upstart motormouth Cassius Clay’s victory over Sonny Liston.

In this respect I have to say that in recent years I’ve become something of a devotee of the new media over the old media, in very large part because the new media are available free, and the old media are not. So I read ZeroHedge, Matt Drudge, Breitbart News, Daily Caller, and watch YouTube videos of Alex Jones’ Infowars, and listen to podcasts of talk  radio hosts Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Mark Levin. I don’t watch any mainstream BBC news at all, because I’ll have to pay the £155/year licence fee if I do. Recently I stopped watching the BBC iplayer catch-up service, because that has now been deemed to require a licence to view that too. Similar restrictions apply to the Times, Telegraph, and several other established media outlets (but not the Independent, Guardian, Mail, and Express).

The result is that I get all my news from free sources, and none of it from pay-to-view sources. And my opinions have been increasingly reflecting this. I’ve been a pretty avid Trump supporter over the past 18 months. And if I’d been an American citizen I would have voted for him in last year’s presidential election. I can well imagine that plenty of American citizens have a similar opinion profile: they read free stuff, and don’t subscribe to the New York Times – because they can’t afford to -, and they voted for Donald Trump because Alex Jones and Michael Savage told them to.

It’s not even that I’m a true believer in the new media. I’m not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist: I still think that the twin towers were brought down by a couple of airliners flown by people with names like Mohammed Atta. And I still think that a lot of schoolkids and teachers were killed at Sandy Hook. And I don’t believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been flying out regularly to Orgy Island (well, not Hillary anyway). But I tend not to believe everything I’m told, whatever the source. So when the mainstream media have been telling me that smoking is the cause of nearly every ailment known to man, and that if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels we’ll soon be facing catastrophic global warming, I tend not to believe them either.

I tend to run my Plausibility Meter over everything I read, asking myself: How Likely Is That To Be True? Is it really very likely that the twin towers were demolished by controlled explosions shortly after having large jet aircraft fly right into them? The needle on the meter moves up into the red Implausible region. But it’s not always like that. Everyone was being told by NASA and the media that the Chelyabinsk fireball of 15 Feb 2013 was completely unrelated to asteroid 2012DA14 that passed very near the Earth on the same day. But it seemed highly plausible to me that the two were related. In that case, the needle remained firmly stuck in the green Plausible region. And, since I constructed numerous orbital simulations, it actually seems a lot more plausible than it did back in 2013: the needle has been moving into the deep green Highly Plausible region of the dial. But I know that pretty much I’m  on my own in this.

But with the MSM calling out Infowars and Breitbart and others as “fake news”, and no less a person than the President of the United States calling out the New York Times as “fake news”, we’re in a major firefight between rivals fighting for legitimacy. Who’s going to win? Who do you trust? Who don’t you trust?

It’s a struggle between the recognised, established experts in every field versus upstart nobodies on the internet. It’s NASA versus Frank Davis. And it’s the UN IPCC versus an army of climate sceptics. And it’s the WHO Tobacco Control against billions of smokers scattered all over the world. It’s the New York Times against Alex Jones’ Infowars. It’s professionals against amateurs. It’s big battalions against guerrilla groups. It’s a whole bunch of Goliaths versus a whole bunch of Davids.

And if you’re someone who readily defers to established experts, you’ll tend to believe the professionals. And if you aren’t, you’ll be rooting for the amateurs.

Somehow or other, the recognised, established experts, that nobody would ever have dreamed of questioning 20 or 30 years ago, are increasingly coming into question. What else is likely to happen to the Roman Catholic church if many of its clerics are found to be paedophiles? What happens to the standing of atomic scientists when their nuclear power stations (Chernobyl, Fukushima) regularly melt down? In such circumstances, people start asking questions. And in the new media environment of the internet, with huge amounts of information available to everyone, it’s increasingly easy to ask questions and come up with new answers. And to tell lots of people about it.

I don’t know how it’s all going to pan out. But I do know that we’re in a global media war.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Global Media Wars

  1. Harleyrider1978 says:

    There’s been a wast of disinformation from the left going on for awhile now besides fake news sites this is what happens when the leftsvtantrum goes full tilt insanity!

  2. castello2 says:

    The largest “new media” group is The Young Turks. I wonder why you don’t mention them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmySz-HNO70

  3. Clicky says:

  4. waltc says:

    The press is so worried about their freedom under Trump who’s merely called them names (much kinder than the ones they’ve called him). Here’s one example of what Obama actually DID to curtail press freedom. The other, even worse, about James Reason of Fox for which I’ll try to find a link

  5. waltc says:

    I find I neither believe the new or the old media. I swallow nothing w/o chewing it over, tho some I dismiss out of hand. To some extent the msm publishes w/o fact checking, taking rumor as fact. For the rest, they report their interpretation of a supposed (or actual) fact rather than the plain fact. Eg, they actually fooled me with their interpretation of what Trump said about Sweden even tho I’d heard him say it the day before and had figured out that he was referring to the Fox documentary. I’ll admit that Trumpspeak is often a garbled shorthand that mangles grammatical structure and leaves itself open to mischief, but he did NOT say there’d been a terror attack “last night” as was reported.

    Similarly, I can see that, as he says (tho w/o explanation or elaboration) that there can in fact be a difference between a leak that’s true and a report that’s “fake.” Say for instance that during a meeting in the Oval Office, General X spills a cup of coffee on the valuable, white, antique rug and the cleaning staff is having a tough time removing it. That much is true but the press reports it as “Permanent Stain on Trump White House” On further learning that a chemical analysis of the stain shows that the coffee was Columbian coffee, the press goes on to speculate about General X’s connection to Columbia and its drug cartels. Seems to me that’s been the tenor of the reporting.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s