#871 - Dave Smith - Why Does Mainstream Media Suck So Much?

Smith and Williamson critique the corporate media, arguing that it fails to serve the public interest and instead operates as state propaganda, perpetuating narratives that benefit the powerful while failing to adapt and correct misinformation.

The corporate media apparatus is essentially state propaganda that covers for powerful interests and spins narratives to benefit them.

Dave Smith contends that the corporate media has always functioned as state propaganda, favoring the narratives of those in power. He suggests that this long-standing reality is the reason for the corporate media's decline, comparing it to the fall of the Soviet Union. This comparison emphasizes his belief that the media has fundamentally failed in their role and, as a consequence, have lost their credibility and right to exist.

Chris Williamson offers an example by pointing to an MSNBC story that notably presented a narrative sympathetic to an illegal immigrant involved in the death of an American citizen. He implies this isn't factual reporting but spinning events to fit a specific agenda.

The media's lies and inability to adjust to new facts have become increasingly blatant and transparent, making their propaganda less effective.

Smith criticizes the corporate media for its rigid stance on issues despite new facts, using the incorrect reporting on Tony Hinchcliffe's comments as an instance where the media's inaccuracies were exposed by social media. He denounces the media's propagandistic tendencies as "stupid" and apparent to the public.

The corporate media has comprehensively failed on major issues, lying the public into disastrous wars and misleading on crucial matters like the economy.

Smith argues that corporate media is consistently wrong about major issues, always inclining towards positions of power. He cites grave errors in reporting on wars in Iraq and Libya and issues surrounding the financial recession, COVID-19, and Russia gate, where the media's mistakes often aligned with the interests o ...

As traditional media faces a crisis of credibility and relevance, figures like Joe Rogan and Dave Smith signify the rising tide of independent media offering a genuine alternative to mainstream outlets.

Independent media outlets and personalities like Joe Rogan and Dave Smith offer far more intelligent, thoughtful, and interesting content than the corporate media.

Smith and Williamson argue that the content available through independent media platforms such as Joe Rogan's podcast is surpassing that of major networks like CNN. Not only are these platforms attracting large audiences, but they are also hosting more intelligent, nuanced, and substantial conversations compared to the often shallow and agenda-driven content on traditional networks. Dave Smith points out that the format of independent media allows for long-form, unedited discussions which can expose a lack of depth in traditional media figures. For example, he suggests that figures like Kamala Harris would struggle in such a format, which reveals a genuine understanding of policy issues.

The depth, nuance, and authenticity of independent media conversations far surpass the shallow, agenda-driven coverage of traditional outlets.

The depth and authenticity of discussions on platforms like the Joe Rogan Experience, where conversations can last about three hours, offer a stark contrast to the scripted performances of nightly news shows. Smith emphasizes the importance of this unguarded conversation style, where hosts and guests can digest new information and react in real-time. This format not only fosters a deeper relationship with the audience but also provides a true reflection of the host's thoughts, free from corporate agendas.

The massive audience and engagement of independent media shows it has become the true mainstream, while the corporate media is increasingly irrelevant.

The growing audience and engagement with independent media suggest it has become the true mainstream. Dave Smith posits that figures like Elon Musk and Joe Rogan could draw significantly more viewers to presidential debates than traditional media hosts, signalling the shift in public trust. This shift is furt ...

The changing media landscape is reflecting a broader societal dissatisfaction with traditional institutions, including the media, and is fueling both anti-establishment and populist movements.

The failures of established institutions like the media have fueled the rise of anti-establishment and populist movements on both the left and right.

Dissatisfaction with the status quo and the perception that traditional power structures are corrupt have driven many to seek alternative sources of information and political representation.

Smith states that the establishment's failure on every level has opened the door for the rise of both far-right and far-left movements. The changing media landscape is symbolic of broader societal dissatisfaction. Williamson points to growing discussions about media issues among the general population, suggesting a widespread awareness and dissatisfaction. Smith recalls a period when independent commentators like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson gained attention by challenging prevailing university views, signaling a societal shift in where and how discussions are taking place. The lack of seriousness in credible media institutions has led people to find intellectual depth in alternative forums like those hosted by Joe Rogan and Dave Smith.

Dave Smith also speaks to the anti-establishment sentiment that has intensified since 2016, which arose around Donald Trump's "drain the swamp" rhetoric. Chris Williamson explains that the right has acted as the "rebellious voice of righteousness," reflecting the broader anti-establishment sentiment. Independent media's growth is seen as a reaction to corporate media's unsatisfactory and uninformative nature, with people searching for outlets they perceive as more honest.

The fragmentation of the media landscape into ideological echo chambers poses dangers, but also presents opportunities for more open and substantive dialogue.

While the siloing of media audiences is concerning, the ability for diverse voices and perspectives to gain traction offers the potential for a healthier public discourse.

Williamson expresses concern that movements to platforms like Blue Sky due to perceived right-leaning biases on Twitter could amplify biases and create echo chambers. However, the conversation between Smith and Williamson explores the possibility that significan ...