I've been doing this for so long that the moment the legacy media says anything, I immediately doubt it, even if I have no reason to believe there's anything false about the claim. If the legacy media said "the sky is blue," I'd look out my window to double-check.
You train people how to treat you, and the legacy media has trained me to see it as a supreme liar.
It isn't a source of news; it is a group of purely propagandistic outlets that work for the benefit of the Democrat Party. You can slap names and letters on it all day long, but whether it's CBS, NBC, CNN, etc., it's all just DNC at the end of the day.
And this has made looking at any report from the legacy media an exhausting mental exercise. Like dealing with a certified narcissist, every word that comes out of your mouth has to be analyzed to determine the game beneath the verbiage. There's an angle to every interaction; you just have to suss out what it is and make sure your next move doesn't allow them to drag you into a lie or manipulation.
Normally, the best way to deal with narcissists is just not to interact with them. Like the lesson in "War Games," the only winning move is not to play, but the issue is that despite its rapid decline, the legacy media still owns the big stage and can concentrate its message into something that seems believable thanks to bottomless resources and saturation in multiple parts of our society. We sadly have to deal with the legacy media because if we don't, then their lie will dominate the public square.
My colleague Streiff wrote a piece pointing out the media's latest attempt to pull one over on us regarding manipulated sentiments of the term "non-violent" when it comes to illegal migrants:
The story focused on the fact that "only" 14 percent of deportees have been charged with or convicted of a violent crime. As the Department of Homeland Security explained, "Drug trafficking, Distribution of child pornography, burglary, fraud, DUI, embezzlement, solicitation of a minor, human smuggling are all categorized as 'non-violent crimes.'" When that category is included, the number leaps to nearly 70 percent.
Read: Over-Hyped Stories Become Media's Favorite Weapon Against Immigration Enforcement
The story in the story is that the legacy media is trying to make ICE and Donald Trump seem cruel, racist, xenophobic, and bigoted by not delving into what "non-violent" crimes can consist of. The legacy media know the term immediately invokes visions of Gandhi, peaceful protest, and sentiments that someone wouldn't hurt a fly; they're just here for a better life.
What they don't tell you is that abuse and harm don't have to come from hitting someone over the head with a bat. Selling someone into slavery isn't necessarily a violent crime, but we all still agree it's wrong and evil. Watching and distributing child porn isn't the same as actually doing something to a child, but it creates a market where things do happen to children.
This isn't exactly a hard line of logic to follow, and the media, as full of useful idiots as it is, isn't so stupid as to not understand this logic either. In fact, if they didn't, they wouldn't spend so much time tiptoeing around it. They see the elephant in the room just as well as you do, but instead of talking about it, they want to cover it with a tarp and accuse you of a social sin for even suggesting a pachyderm is present.
So, in effect, the media isn't just trying to manipulate you; it's trying to allow evil to thrive because it benefits the Democrat Party and furthers the leftist ideological takeover of America. If it benefits Donald Trump or the Republican Party, no matter how good for everyone the thing they're doing is, it must be sold as cruel, horrible, and morally wrong.
If Donald Trump stopped a nuclear missile from impacting somewhere in the United States and he saved millions, there'd be think pieces from mainstream sources either trying to sell the nuclear impact as "better" than Trump's reaction to it or trying to make the nuclear launch all his fault to begin with.
I am honestly exhausted. I feel like I've been playing the same game for over twenty years, and now I'm arriving at a point where I'm wondering if we need an ICE, but for legacy media execs and journos who purposefully work to destabilize America.
My first thought would be to starve the beast, but I'm not sure how that would work at this juncture. Technological and societal developments to make them obsolete will have to develop further, and they do seem to be heading that way. At this time, however, the best means of defense is a good offense, which is what my colleagues here at RedState try to do consistently, along with many other entities online.
But no matter how you slice it, this can't continue. Trump called the media "the enemy of the people," which is something the legacy media thought was just an awful thing to say, but they've consistently proven it's true time and again. What they're defending in the name of one party's benefit are things that legitimately hurt people and get them killed. If it wasn't for sites like X and the various journalists that took it upon themselves to find the truth, where would we be today?
The legacy media is dangerous. It is our enemy. No buts. No caveats. No nuances. They have to be fought at every moment and with prejudice until it wastes away from obsolescence.
