A necessary occult corollary to the term “mainstream media” is that there exists, somewhere, an “alternative media” that is legitimate—and the person who speaks about “the mainstream media” usually presents themselves as just such a niche proposition, as a tributary media as opposed to the big river; and we are to think that the neglected tributaries contain “the real thing”.
This is a delusion because the problem is the media itself—there is a problem with the very mode “media” that causes it to conceal. If you consult A Journal of the Plague Year (1664) you find that Defoe observes that the newspapers are filled with lies and trivial gossip—and he wrote at a time when the newspaper was novel. There never was a “golden age” of journalism—the media has always been this way; its reason to exist is trivia and deception—mainstream or alternative.
If you look at polls, people profess to detest journalists and the media—and yet they still consume it, or enough do to make it a workable proposition. In truth, when they say they “detest” journalism it just shows that journalism works—its purpose is to raise your gorge, get a reaction. “How can they say this?” You feel angry, you stamp around the house. It is all an illusion—to irritate you is the point. You like to be irritated—you are complicit; it is quasi-erotic—“name and shame”, “dirty, filthy”. Then when someone asks you a survey question—itself integral to the media-advertisement complex—you pick the radio button that gives journalism “1”. There. That shows them.
The reason right-wing pundits like to zoom in on “loopy woke professors who wear enormous fake breasts to class” is that the right-wing pundit is himself a journalist—so he will hardly blame his own profession, although perhaps he will blame the “mainstream media”. Better to focus on the academics instead—and yet the academics would be harmless without the media; just obscure people engaged in recondite talk so filled with jargon it would never harm anybody.
It is the media that takes their work and makes it presentable for the public and, through its competitive nature, looks for ways to garner attention from odd research—it is a great story, whether you are on the left or on the right, to write about a man who claims to have had a baby. From the common-sense perspective, the answer is simple: he has not had a baby. It takes the media, both left and right, to turn it into a perpetual “public debate”—a debate that eventually influences a few more men to “have babies” too.
The media has replaced religion, storytelling, folk art, and shamanism—and what it has replaced these facets to human nature with is synthetic, rather like a Barbie doll as opposed to a hand-sewn doll (the Barbie doll is non-binary and comes in black now—you will be glad to hear; and the right-wing media will protest that it was better when she looked like a whore, just like most female right-wing pundits look like whores—something for the dads, as the editors say).
Wisdom is to realise the whole media itself is junk—and not just the news media. The news media is particularly bad because it set itself up as a religion quite consciously. There was a time when people would sit down in the evening to hear *the news*—BONG, BONG, BONG; derr-te-ter-de-ter THE NEWS. It was like a sacral event that you sat down to, in the twilight with curtains drawn, with a priest in a tie to deliver the homily. The television overturned the fireplace, home to the household gods, but now it has been overturned in its turn.
It was far worse when people took the media as a serious proposition, thought The Times was a “quality” newspaper. The best newspapers were always The Sunday Sport and The National Enquirer (“WWII bomber found ON MOON”; “My DAD paid for BREAST IMPLANTS on my 18th”). These publications showed up what the media is in essence—and did less damage to the people who read them than those who sat down to “serious publications”.
Social media does not count in this regard because it is not true media—it is just a large conversation in a pub. What is positive about it is that it punctures the incredible sanctimony that surrounds the official media—the nightly TV news ceremony is gone. You can say anything underneath the presenter’s Twitter feed—and so the false priests have been pulled down; and that’s why they’ve been annoyed about Twitter anons—they can’t play holy and smug when people fart in church all the time, and so the mystique has gone. Now, an on-going conversation in a pub is not necessarily more coherent or true that the old media, but it is more real.
Entertainment media is worse: most people feel positively towards “their show” and “their show” will inevitably contain progressive liberal—aka woke—morality; and it will instruct as it entertains, it is in fact programmed to do so. Even the staunchest right-wingers only complain at the most egregious progressive themes because these products are ultimately fun—and earlier iterations of progressive ideology are fondly remembered, even by rightists, from their childhoods.
Even today, in democratic times, only about 1/3 of people go to university—not all of them study courses that are “woke”. Everyone consumes media—especially entertainment media. If you nixed the media tomorrow, you would find that society would lurch to the right. The media amounts to a huge synthetic religion, divorced from nature and often influenced by racial outsiders—such as the Jews. It has a quality that is inherently “they”; it invites you to participate in a false community that has all these taboos (racism, sexism) that are not real or constitute an anti-morality. Leave it behind, get your news from the trees—get your entertainment from the swans.