I have the cui bono part down just fine but if you think I'm going to be doing anything other than presenting things in a bottom-up, inductive reasoning and evidence based fashion--you are wrong.

I mean, next time you’re watching one of your YouTubes, take a serious look at the ads that pop up and what that says about the audience’s capacity to think skeptically or question narratives.

Most controversial youtube videos are demonitized and have been for awhile, so why you would think there is any sort of relationship between ads and critically thinking ability escapes me and I can only assume you are just making it up.

But just to be clear. Is the argument that people who think the MSM is the word of God are the ones who are thinking critically whereas those who are questioning it are not?

There is precisely one side of the political aisle that has a basic capacity to scrutinize journalism, and that's not the side that thinks Soros is hiring crisis actors to hide the truth about the lizard people.

On a tangential note, I've often recommended the On The Media podcast. The even have an episode dedicated to how the MSM screws up when they cover mass shootings.

It's interesting Fly's theory that the Republicans created conspiracy theories in order to discredit both parties.
It doesn't really make a lot of sense because the idea is what: that Republican voters become apathetic and don't vote and Democrats win?
Democrats have shown though how well they scrutinize and how objective reporting can be in regards to all things Trump/Russia/Mueller. But Go Team Blue.

Remind me again, who is the ombudsman for Infowars?

It must be nice to not really be able to engage with arguments and just pick out little snippets of posts to try to make pithy remarks. Would make life easier.
Alex Jones and infowars is a much trickier subject than disecting the mainstream media. Needless to say it is as much about propaganda and misdirection as the MSM and Alex Jones has been heavily promoted (and used as a punching bag) by them.

I’m not trying to limit this specifically to AJ, im kind of being allegorical. Just replace “Alex Jones” with whatever yootoobe you get your news coverage and let me know who their ombudsman is.

If your point is: respectable news organizations have ombudspeople while non-respectable ones don't, then you've made it.

And at this point I should probably make the point that I don't get my news from a single source and that I take it in from a variety of places--mainstream, alternative, and yes youtube.

Except you don't actually have a clue where I get my news from. I think the last links that I posted in this thread were from WaPo, The Wall Street Journal, and the New Yorker.
Because I think "alternatively" you assume that that means that that is coming from a specific place but it doesn't work that way and your argument is pretty ridiculous.
It amounts to: "these are the serious journalists and only serious journalists are serious. And if you don't believe the serious journalists then you can't be serious".

Russiagate has destroyed any pretense the mainstream media has for being serious and I would like to go there because it is important evidence for my thesis that the media and Trump are involved in theater.
I'm sure people can argue that it shows the opposite because: if they are in some symbiotic relationship, why would the media discredit itself just to try to pretend to go after Trump. I thought that as well which is what makes some of this difficult.

Correct. So like, for example, that Fox and CNN produce different products is a problem for your theory right from the start.

Not quite, it's more complicated than that, but we'll get into the grownup stuff later.

I literally don't know what "theater" means when you use it like this, and neither do you. It's all about fluffing your ego.

I want to make very clear we don't agree. You're such a ****ing mark you thought Trump complaining about "liberal media", which has been a staple of right wing rhetoric going back at least 40 years, meant that Trump was lol some sort of renegade.

I didn't! I knew he was a Fox News watching grandpa with brain worms and racism. You got conned by a man with dementia, and now that he's implementing his ****ty policies you think people who are mad about them are marks for some shadowy pro-outrage media conspiracy?

And you still, STILL, didn't answer the ****ing question. What's in it for the media? Who is pulling the strings to create this theater, and why?

Yeah man we ****ing got that already. You aren't special, man, we already had Lestat in the old forum. Bootlickers who inexplicably want to pretend to be Bold Rebels(against, uh, The Atlantic's criticism of Daddy? LOL) are not a unique look.

But somehow Alex Jones railing against chemicals turning the frogs gay didn't make you question the seriousness of fringe conspiracy theorists.

It's a poor word choice for someone who quite literally believes in crisis actors.

So do the National Review and Politico. The claim isn't that the mainstream news outlets produce the exact same material. The claim is that the material that they do produce goes to support mainstream, establishment narratives. I think you get that the mechanisms of propaganda are a little more complicated here in the West than having one state-sponsored news outlet.
The idea prior to Trump has been for them to be united on foriegn policy while playing up social and domestic policy differences. Fox plays to the conservative crowd but thinking that they are fundamentally different from the rest of the MSM is really problematic for your way of thinking.

I think you need to stop talking down to me, or everyone, until you really grapple with Trolly's question about why the Youtubes and "alternative" news for real thinkers you consume is full of ads for brain force pills. it seemed to confuse you(lol not reading books costs you again! Every time!), so I'll just put it plainly:

It's because you aren't the only mark watching it. Everyone watching that **** is a mark.

My dad actually worked for the company that produced the chemicals that interferes with the sexual development of frogs, believe it or not. So this isn't quite the best example.
But it is a good example of why Alex Jones is considered disinformation and why he had been promoted by the MSM. It doesn't matter if in this case there is some actual truth to the idea. The point is more about Alex Jones' bombastic delivery turning people off from conspiratorial ideas before they ever start while keeping his own audience in a box.

Fly. They don't put ads on conspiracy youtubes and Alex Jones is a shill. I doubt that helps but it is what it is.
Trying to discredit me because Alex Jones sells nutraceuticals is a joke and you should consider why it is a joke.
Also once again I've read more books than you and I know more and I'm more curious about things than you. Also your post is a complete non-sequitor response to mine which is something you seem to enjoy.
And probably fwiw I'll continue to talk down to you until you stop talking down to me. That is sort of how it works. Treat me with respect and I'll treat you with it.

Also it is probably worth mentioning that this narrative that Trump and the media are in cahoots is the exact opposite narrative that is put out by Alex Jones--who instead argues that Trump is there fighting the "globalists". Alex Jones is a Trump supporter.
So given that I am saying completely antiethical things than Jones, you guys should probably stop trying to smear me with his name because it makes you look ignorant.

You think his *delivery* is the reason he’s a laughing stock? Not, like, his ideas?

I mean, you’re sort of cagey about which crackpots you get your news from, so Alex Jones is a useful stand-in here. And as much as you want to distance yourself from him, you two are in agreement when it comes to Sandy Hook crisis actors and contrails and 9/11.

Can you see why it might be beneficial to have one guy be the poster boy for conspiracy theories and then make him out to be a buffoon? As soon as Jones starts talking about something that is your cue that there can't possibly be any truth there. As far as those issues that you mentioned, Jones has been quite wishy-washy about Sandy Hook and I'm sure we have some disagreements on 9/11 as well.
And again--using someone as a "stand-in" to attempt to smear me is hardly good faith posting. Try to address actual ideas.

He knew her, personally, and he knew she was dead.

Also, this stuff that WN doesn't want you talking about is your whole ballgame in this hijack of the Trump thread. It is true that the corporate media presents a united front on 9/11, Sandy Hook, the Orlando Nightclub shooting, Columbine, etc. Your conclusion for this united front is that they are part of a unified conspiracy rather than that all those things actually happened.

Can you image just how ****ed we are once the means to create ai generated video becomes common?

It's definitely possible to arrive at ideas about the controlled nature of media that have nothing to do with any of the conspiracy theories that you mentioned. There are leftists in pog like Birdman who hardly believes in any conspiracy theories and he will tell you that the media and the major parties work to benefit large corporations. So if he got there via another route it is possible for anybody and I certainly had my ideas about the media before many of those events even occurred.