The Finest MSM Redpill

[Ian Powell]

Many normies, lurkers and posters are perfectly aware of the sneaky and devious ways of the lying press, both to the Left and to the Right.

>this is a bipartisan issue

The MSM with its lying op-eds, which now exceed the pieces of information, successfully created a climate of division. Half the populace believe them, the other half don't.

This can be clearly observed in mass social media hubs like the Facebook comments sections on 1mil+ pages, and in elections.

But, what is new kangaroo?

I have the feeling that the MSM is not liberal nor progressive at all.

>Their agenda is completely hidden.

Here the main questions all pollacks should ask themselves

1. The MSM is an oligopoly, which is an aberration of capitalism. Oligopoly ensures fat profits and collusion is highly likely (thus the MSM all spouting the same shit). Why take a liberal, subtly anti capitalist, socialist-like stance on issues? Isn't this a kind of suicide in the mid term?

2. If MSM is guided by profits, why did they choose to pander (and click bait) to the half of the population which is far more likely to dislike their market structure and ultimately dismantle them in a nationalization wave? If their aim is to get clicks, why did they decide to get the more dangerous clicks?

3. If MSM is an oligopoly which is highly likely colluded, why don't they enact a strategy of divide-and-conquer or, putting it in a more academic way, of diversification? Why did they choose to be all liberal and progressive, without boosting the number of right wing outlets and the 'voice' of semi-conservative channels like FOX, which is now shat over and is actually a classic Democrat news outlet?

>This makes me think that the MSM has a hidden agenda which goes against its 'face' interests.

This is /x/ tier shit right here pals.

[Dylan Hernandez]

Your questions all presume that profit is the motive of news organizations yet you acknowledge that it is an oligopoly. The news is kind of like a loss leader. The news doesnt make money that much imo and probably loses money but they are just small arms of larger media conglomerates so the condition is the most important part. YouTube works the same way for Google.

[John Gray]

wtf i'm a radiator grille for hill now

[Noah Morris]

>>this is a bipartisan issue
Everything about trump has been a bipartisan issue since he started running this time

[Xavier White]

Oligopoly means fat profits. In fact the less corporations are active, the bigger the profits of the remaining corporations. They are not pursuing a strategy aimed to consolidate their position as they pander to young socialists and left wing idealists, who are highly likely to nationalize media.

>pic related as of 2011. Warner has been acquired

Yet no one is talking about breaking up the big Media.

[Samuel Kelly]

They look sneaky

[Joseph Thompson]

every thing you see and hear from the media is designed to sell you shit you probably dont need. that it. every word you see and sound you hear is designed to part you from your money. trust me I am the electric jew.

[Cooper Brown]

>upset lib anonymously calls huffpost about "leak" to stir the pot
>huffpost writes article

fake news 101

[Gabriel Rivera]

>say inside sources
>it is rumored
>according to an unidentified source

This shit is just pathetic now.

[Angel Hill]

HOLY SHIT GUYS

HES WITH H I M

YEB 2020

[John Myers]

A pretty glib answer to these questions is that the media outlets you are looking askance at are in profit free-fall and sense that the left is a more reliable market for a few reasons: 1. they aren't as untrusting of the media as the right; 2. they have generated a reliable profit for huffpo and salon, etc, so the mainstream players see a loss of market-share that they want to woo back with pandering opinion pieces, etc.

Both sides like consuming click baitey articles that confirm their world view, but the media is generally filled with left-leaning characters so they're more likely to want to feed their own side. The guys at the top only care about making the quarter and politics doesn't matter if their subscription numbers are healthy.

As a last point, note that right leaning websites have trouble getting advertisers. Big corporates are wary of brand damage by association. Picking the left means less risk to ad revenue, reliable outrage-induced click throughs and the continuation of the status quo.

Long term risk viz nationalization of media or legislation breaking up monopolies is either not thought about or ignored by the people making the decisions.

[Jason Perez]

Checked and agreed. They are blinded by the short-term gain that social media dependent millennials generate with their never ending outraged clicks and angry reacts.

Yet I can't explain the lack of diversification. That's too dangerous to put all eggs in one basket. Lefties are easily brainwashed by their 'opinion leaders'. The left is also creeping towards the absolute concept 'white=bad' and MSM is 100% white American and Jewish. They are in a unsustainable position and still they don't seem to notice it.

[Liam Wood]

sounds like the people leaking confidential white house information might be the ones who are unfit to be there

[Caleb Sanders]

The media is owned by globalist elites. They push the agenda of destroying all Western countries to pave the way for a one world government controlled by the globalist elites. "Progressivism" is the best way to destroy the West which is why that's what they push.

The conflict has been about globalists vs. nationalists for a long time now, since establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats are on the same side of globalism. Globalists won't support nationalists (e.g. Trump supporters) because they're in direct conflict to their goals of destroying the West and one world government.

[Jason Fisher]

>Huffcuck
>leak
>no source
The only thing that's leaking is their anus after their bbc party last night.

[Logan Mitchell]

>huffington post
>not listed anywhere as a white house attendee media organization
>posts outright lies
>pushes equality while being all women

[Ryan Powell]

(((((((((((((((((((((((huffington post))))))))))))))))))))))

[Evan Brooks]

I've become apathetic to the MSM and no longer care.

[David Taylor]

>when the LOOK AT ME urge of the white millennial woman/gurl kicks in

[Noah Bell]

please look at the authors and cry

[Robert King]

2. If MSM is guided by profits, why did they choose to pander (and click bait) to the half of the population which is far more likely to dislike their market structure and ultimately dismantle them in a nationalization wave? If their aim is to get clicks, why did they decide to get the more dangerous clicks?
I don't think the medias will be negatively impacted by the stances their writers push, the medias aren't like any other industry, beside getting clicks they're supposed to be a counterpower to the state to hold them a bit accountable for their actions, which sets them aside from other companies, also the lefists won't bite the hand that feeds them. Still when it comes to other companies like apple your question stands and I guess they make so much money that they don't care, also afaik they're so much dependent on the market that they don't plan much on the long term, they just have broad guidelines

[Cooper Rivera]

Fuck I'm on my phone I fucked up the greentext

[Logan Myers]

>Huffington Shitpost

[Grayson Powell]

> /x/ tier

No, it's just the fucking Jews.

[Jason Barnes]

Actually, traditional news media is not profitable any more and they stay alive solely on investments from wealthy donors, thus their raison d'etre is no longer to provide a service to their customers but to provide a service to their sponsors, and the customers are the product

[Jaxson Baker]

Why are all the Asians shoved in the back corner?

[Mason Butler]

I checked out their editorial staff
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Fineman
This guy's the global editorial director, he is not a woman, you only take in information from twitter screen caps, you are a liar, lying is a sin you pig fuck.

[Jacob Wright]

>fineman

[Jeremiah Bennett]

>leak suggest
i.e. We made up some more dumb shit

[Brandon Fisher]

Are you saying there are no leaks?

[Wyatt Jenkins]

At least two of you are the same person trying to create an impression of consensus with dynamic IP switching or whatever it is

the first two have the same fruity language and syntax... from fucking australia nah not buying it

[Henry Sanders]

The MSM licked Obama's anus for straight 8 years without holding him accountable for anything from war to unemployment. This is why he's now considered the best president America has ever had.

I already see articles blaming Trump PERSONALLY for drone raids in the headlines, something that is completely out of touch with reality and assumes readers have an average of 85 IQ. The MSM takes an anti white, anti American, anti western, anti reason and opinion driven approach to news. Short term gain with millennial clicks is to blame but something is sneaking behind this.

[Jack Smith]

not one fuckable harpy in the whole room

[Elijah Butler]

Your presumptions make sense, but are wrong.

News media is a political control tool. They don't have to make money if their patrons pay them to evangalize ideology.

News media is consolidated and therefore can be controlled easily, which means people with money can buy them.

But the ones that have the most money in the country are the ones that print it, so you can see who controls that.

It's not as simplistic like that, but news medias agenda, is generally status quo.

Their agenda is anti-white, anti-conservative, because the elites are like that. Media has little will of it's own.

[Asher Jackson]

Stay in school bong

[Lucas Sanchez]

>The MSM is an oligopoly, which is an aberration of capitalism.
Capitalism is an abstract economic model. Oligopoly is the real-world result of a series of causes such as professional networking (they do business with one another), social allegiance (they go to the same schools, are friends) and intra-organization intrigue (a vice-president in a company might incite a hostile takeover bid so he can be the president of the board later on). A major cause of oligopoly is that increasingly powerful political groups and businesses become interwoven (like the European Commission and Goldman Sachs, which have a revolving-door setup for top jobs while the European Commission is formally partly responsible for overseeing the adherence of Goldman Sachs to competition rules).

>Why take a liberal, subtly anti capitalist, socialist-like stance on issues?
There is nothing 'Socialist-like' about the mass media or any corporation. Their stances are the result of a sort of symbiosis between 1960s/1970s social progressivism and 1980s/1990s economic liberalism. The social views of Bernie Sanders, the economic views of Ronald Reagan. For us that is bad-bad, for them that is good-good, because they get to make a lot of money off the backs of the poor and downtrodden and still feel morally superior to the people they exploit.

>If MSM is guided by profits, why did they choose to pander (and click bait) to the half of the population which is far more likely to dislike their market structure and ultimately dismantle them in a nationalization wave?
Different markets. Western societies are 35-65, with 35% being "far-right" and 65% being "the rest". The former category attracts specialized companies, while the latter (which is also wealthier and younger on average) is competed over by the rest.

[Nicholas Howard]

Isn't this based on that "rogue white house staff" twitter account¿ It was proven to be false a while ago.
FAKE NEWS

[Jack Reed]

Except nowadays corporations are siding with the left and losing money because of association. You only have to look at the companies trying to take on Trump to see what happens. The left is no longer a safe bet.

[Benjamin Martin]

>bbc party
Bombard cannon?

[Jayden Rivera]

They are a lot more diversified than you are giving them credit for .....

they've infiltrated the churches
the schools
they have "alternative" / "conspiracy" media
they have paid shills to post online
they create entire ideologies (marxism, lolbertardianism, etc)
they fund people who say what they want to be heard
and keep money away from those who dissent (or worse)

All of that aside, their end game isn't one world government. That's Alex Jones tier disinformation.

The modus operandi is more accurately described as a strategy of tension or balkanization rather than a fake left/right paradigm. Two largely united groups is less than ideal to them.

Think about it. If you have two groups that have to appear in conflict to each other, that is actually pretty hard control mechanism. It isn't trivial to frame every issue with two sides that work to your benefit, yet seem opposing. Wherever you fail here, you leave open the ability of marginal voters to shift preferences from one of two bulk umbrellas and therefore start exercising influence via the nationstate.

What they want is as many factions as possible. Atheists, evangelicals, catholics, hippies, feminists, MGTOW, infinite fractionalization.

And guess what? There are safe spaces on the internet for all of these people. You know it, so you already knew that your homogeneous notions were BS to start with.

[David Jackson]

>Western societies are 35-65, with 35% being "far-right" and 65% being "the rest".

Interesting theory which would explain a lot. Any study or source?

[Ayden Ortiz]

The media has had a monopoly for a long time (large profits), but they are losing it because of the internet.

They want to influence politics to get things from the state.

In Sweden private (jewish btw) media companies get 100's millions of dollars in support from the government.

The media scratches the back of the government and the government scratches the back of the media...

Trump is against all that and he's against the media thus he is a threat to the media.

Look at US MSM, they spend a lot of time whining about how important they are and how they are the only ones fighting "fake news". '

Eventually they are going to push for government support (and support from companies like Kikebook and JewTube) in the form of anti-competitive measures or outright financial support.

[Oliver Thompson]

Just a general observation that I guessed and derived from some election results. It seems it's the cap for positive support for "far-right" candidates. If it's a two-horse race with a weak horse on the other side the electoral support for the far-right might be slightly better, like in Austria (46.2%) and the United States 45.9%), but the ideological cap in an 'open field' seems to be 35% (and in this country we only have one major 'far-right' party and it's at just 10% of seats in our parliament currently).

[Sebastian Williams]

You're overthinking this. The media lies and shills for globalism and destruction of Western Civilization because the media is Jewish. This is what Jews do. Yes, they love money. But they hate White people more than they love profit, and they see infinite profit in their future if they can replace Whites with Muds.

[Colton Reed]

Well Trump threatens their market structure and doesn't play along with them whereas Obama did, so it makes sense from their pov

[Easton Lewis]

70% of Huffpost is Bullshit. They make up shit and see what sticks

[Dominic Evans]

>insider
>anonymous source
>official source
>intelligent source
>unnamed source
Every single story about Trump will have one of these. Either they're fabricating them whole cloth or the Trump admin is trying to make it look like they are.

[Carson Morales]

you're shite mate

[Ian Allen]

That's a great truthpill

According to this, their greatest enemy is Fascism. With it's core tenet of unity, it would wipe out the parasitic elites.

[Mason Fisher]

We never talk about a homogeneous 'left' here yet a lot of political identities can be ascribed to the modern left because of some very common tenets such as: anti-white rhetoric, anti-western rhetoric, pro-muslim rhetoric, no borders rhetoric and more. All of these can be found in those who can be called 'the left'. Im aware that absolute homogeneity never existed.

Given this fact, a diversified portfolio of news outlets under the same corporation (properly hidden with creative accounting measures) would create more click revenue. Why take only the left side of politics? Why NO news outlet is 'pro western' (ie diversified) when it would clearly create revenue?

[Kevin Ross]

Literally just the extended phenotype of Jews. This is what they build. Like a beaver building a dam.

[Austin Mitchell]

YOU GOT MASON DIGITS
WATCH FOR PURPLE CLOTHING ITS A COLOR REVOLUTION

[Michael Rivera]

>(((leaks)))

[Hunter Thompson]

>petrol huffing post
into the trash

> Anyone else regret voting for Drumpf?
Crew sample-18(rename before posting
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/110530224/

>Since most of us here now regret voting for Trump, how can we fix this and make Hillary the president?
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/110192154/

>How do I change my vote to Hillary Clinton??
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/110198143/

>I unironically regret voting for Trump.
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/104955778/#104957056
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/104925525/#104930503
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/104928796/#104928796

> Anyone else regret voting for Trump?
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/104774562
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/104719198
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/104514402
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/104493084
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/104337036

>I already regret voting for Trump.
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/104292068/
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/104287563/
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/104207560/
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/103408424/#103408905
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/103935999/#103935999
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/103993173/#q103993173
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/102200294/#q102200294
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/101787750/#101787750
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/101242276/#101242276
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/99928859/#99928859
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/99460353/#99460353

>I'm starting to think that my far-right political views are just a result of...
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/110465493

>tfw you actually thought a 70-year old conman could fix our country
>Is anyone else here a former Trump supporter?
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/110430139/

[Camden Stewart]

Aren't these just shitposts? Shitposting is legit in itself.
The issue lies in mod activity and deletion pattern. They don't prune off topic and off rules threads.

[Caleb Garcia]

but the msm told me that leaks were fake news during the election

now they are telling me to listen to leaks

i am confused

[Noah Morris]

Back to stormfront

[Asher Baker]

uploaded image file name identifies CREW:
Crew sample-18(rename before posting).jpg
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/110530224/

>Modbro is real, and he actually helped me get my own janitor position on 4/pol/ in the latest application period.
We're keeping it low-key right now (strictly just banning people who report leftist threads and stuff like that), but as leftism and cultural marxism start to take hold on 4/pol/, we're going to ramp it up.

is2.Sup Forums.org/pol/1486489181839.png

[Owen Powell]

forgot to turn on the proxy?
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/111679733/#111689276

[Jack Morgan]

No one cared who I was until I put on the mask.

Please don't out me I'll give u shekels rav

[Kevin Gomez]

Many of your premises are just plain wrong.

>1. The MSM is an oligopoly, which is an aberration of capitalism. Oligopoly ensures fat profits and collusion is highly likely (thus the MSM all spouting the same shit). Why take a liberal, subtly anti capitalist, socialist-like stance on issues? Isn't this a kind of suicide in the mid term?
Spot on: the MSM is an oligopoly. But the goals of this oligopoly are not limited to economic power (read: fat profit margins). The whole "for monies only" narrative is an immense deflection tactic (that many conservatives and (classic) liberals fall for) for protecting the real goal of the entire scheme: subversion of western culture, wide and far.

>2. If MSM is guided by profits, why did they choose to pander (and click bait) to the half of the population which is far more likely to dislike their market structure and ultimately dismantle them in a nationalization wave? If their aim is to get clicks, why did they decide to get the more dangerous clicks?
Their goal is subversion, not profits. The entire premise is false.

>3. If MSM is an oligopoly which is highly likely colluded, why don't they enact a strategy of divide-and-conquer or, putting it in a more academic way, of diversification? Why did they choose to be all liberal and progressive, without boosting the number of right wing outlets and the 'voice' of semi-conservative channels like FOX, which is now shat over and is actually a classic Democrat news outlet?
Put aside the wrong premises already pointed out above, in order to understand why their tactics are these or those in a given moment, it is necessary to deeply aprehend propaganda strategy and psychological warfare models. It begins in Alinsky but it does not end just there.

>This makes me think that the MSM has a hidden agenda which goes against its 'face' interests.
Exactly. That's the point! Come on, how old are you, twelve?!

In the contemporary world, you must take literally nothing at face-value.

[Ian Morris]

>in order to understand why their tactics are these or those in a given moment, it is necessary to deeply aprehend propaganda strategy and psychological warfare models

teach me then, nappy haired wiseman. I'm all ears!

[Adrian Smith]

>I have the feeling that the MSM is not liberal nor progressive at all.
Media gets paid through clicks. Progressives are more likely to get an article rolling through their social circles so they pander to them.

But also, there's collusion.

[Colton Kelly]

"LEAKS SUGGEST"
>that Hillary Clinton routinely beheaded infants as sacrifices to Moloch.
"INSIDE SOURCES INDICATE"
>Bill clinton fucked the neck-holes of the decapitated babies.
"TOP SCIENTISTS REPORT"
>That adding breast milk to the mixture combats global warming.

I love weasel words! With them, you can say anything without actually lying! Doubly so if you are using Buzzfeed as your source.

[Jose Campbell]

>huffington post

Gee, this liberal propaganda rag featuring bloggers and guest writers has another anti trump article?

[Jack Lee]

>every word you see and sound you hear is designed to part you from your money.
How does meddling in social politics part someone from their money?

The myriad examples that cater to SJW mindset, or the whole slew of oh-so-forced miscegenation (black male/white female) and "diversity for its own sake" in all media (including the most innocuous of advertisements) that one stumbles across on Sup Forums that is inevitably attributed to the electric joo. How is this, if it is a thing, designed to part people from their money?

Who makes money of this?