“I believe that competition in the future will not be only an advertising competition between individual products or between big associations, but that it will in addition be a competition of propaganda.”

– Edward Bernays, author of ‘Propaganda,’ and ‘The Father of Public Relations’

For the longest time, the mainstream media lacked true opposition. Sure, there have been many media outlets competing for market share of subscribers over the last century, but there has always lacked true opposition in the form of perspective, narrative, and principle. Following the end of the FCC’s ‘Fairness Doctrine’ in 1987, talk radio emerged as a right wing power house to combat the enormous blob of collectivist thought that made up the mainstream press. But, talk radio only went so far, it would take the true freedom of the internet with it’s low barriers to entry to uncage the diversity of opinion that makes up American thought. This new medium for journalism has given rise to the alternative media, and the alternative media is now winning the competition for trust.

In response, the mainstream media projected it’s massive shortfall in trust onto the alternative media with two words: ‘fake news.’ This weaponized term of ‘Fake News’ that the left-wing media created has blown back on them, further poisoning their former, long standing brands of trust and authority in journalism.

In the latter half of February 2017, within only a couple of days of each other, The New York Times, CBS News, and The Washington Post all announced new slogans in an attempt to uproot the public’s perception that they are fake news.

The New York Times launched a 30 second ad during the 89th Academy Awards. The ad transcribes many recent news story lines in an ever-accelerating, chaotic, and contradictory fashion. Each story line overlaps the one prior to emphasize how the truth can be drowned out by the numerous voices of the modern media era. These story lines end in a crescendo stating that “Truth is hard to find, to know, and more important now than ever.” The final line is the words: The New York Times. This ad is an attempt to reposition NYT as THE authority that can cut through the surrounding noise that entangles the truth.

The New York Times is fighting more than a credibility, PR battle; they are fighting for their financial survival. President Trump has repeatedly branded them, “the failing New York Times.”

The President’s persuasive branding device invokes his critics to attempt to disprove the claim. The problem for them is, he’s right. The New York Times’ 4th Quarter net income for 2016 was $37m, down from $52m for the same quarter in 2015, a 28% decrease. And this shrinking income came about during an election year! Election years generally boost media ad revenue and readership.

CBS News chose a slightly less subtle way to close the brand gap between their reporting and so called ‘fake news’ with the new slogan, ‘Real News.’

CBS has been a news broadcasting organization for nearly 90 years. This slogan is not an informative label of a new player in the media space; this message’s sole purpose is to draw the sharpest distinction away from CBS’s current brand image of ‘fake news.’ CBS’s choice to combat the brand of ‘fake news’ head-on is an admission that the alternative of leaving this issue alone would only further damage their credibility.

The Washington Post’s latest slogan is “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” It’s clearly catchy with it’s strong use of alliteration, but the persuasiveness of the tone reveals The Post’s not-so-subtle narrative. Democracy is an overwhelmingly positive ideal held in America, and the fear of democracy dying evokes a strong emotional appeal for us to prevent it’s demise. How do we prevent democracy from dying in darkness? With light! Supposedly, that light shines forth from The Washington Post.

The term ‘darkness’ is interesting too. ‘Dark’ has been repeatedly used to describe Donald Trump’s campaign and now White House. Scott Adams explains that ‘dark’ “lets you fill in the details with whatever scares you the most about Trump while conveying a general tone of evil and negativity.” There’s no coincidence that this new WaPo slogan was not used during the Obama administration; yet, one month into Trump’s administration, we’re reminded how democracy dies each time The Washington Post covers a story. At least there is no more pretense that The Washington Post is an unbiased and objective news source when they tied their slogan to the defeat of their enemy, Donald Trump. They are telling you right up front, ‘this propaganda piece is designed to destroy the current president.’

The mainstream media is at war with Donald Trump and the alternative media. These are rather newer enemies to the not-so-long-ago, unopposed mainstream media. Anticipate the other mainstream media outlets to shift their slogans towards pronouncing that they too are ‘real news.’ But they too will be in vein. The shift in consciousness, thanks to the alternative media and Donald Trump, has already reached it’s tipping point and no amount of competing, mainstream media, propaganda slogans will replace the trust that is lost.

Props to the mainstream media, the introduction of the term, fake news, has been an overwhelming success, but not as they intended. The label is beautiful; it’s a concise, unambiguous, sticky buzzword that instantly resonates with its receiver. ‘Fake news’ is the atomic bomb of persuasive labeling with the capability of obliterating a story. Yet, the mainstream media is learning that forging a game-changing weapon of war comes at a cost  — your enemy will soon acquire it and point it right back at you. The leftist progenitors of ‘fake news,’ much like the men of the Manhattan Project, have come to regret their tool’s ramifications.

Fake news (def.) – a type of hoax or deliberate spread of misinformation published under the guise of being authentic news to mislead in order to gain financially or politically

The term ‘fake news’ has rocketed in prevalence as depicted in Google Trends since late October 2016.

It appears as if this simple phrase came out of nowhere. Journalism has been around for millennia; moreover, news reporting hasn’t changed that much since 2012 and 2014 where that graph line remains flat. Are we to believe that there was no such thing as ‘fake news’ back then? Of course not. So, why the skyrocketing spike? Why the concern now about fake news? In a nutshell,  because Donald Trump won.

Media Matters for America is a politically progressive, self-proclaimed ‘watchdog’ site. The organization’s stated mission is to “comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” Did you catch that?  Their stated mission is ‘to correct conservative media,’ and given that Donald Trump won the presidency, Media Matter’s mission just got a whole lot more imperative for the political left.

A confidential memo from David Brock, founder of Media Matters, written sometime shortly after the election, headlined in it’s first few pages that they are committed to fighting against ‘fake news.’ One of the three stated goals of ‘The Media Matters Plan,’ is the goal of “Developing technologies to serve as an early warning system for fake news and inoculate social media platforms from exploitation and abuse.”

This is a real news story about fake news stories

November 7, 2016, Washington Post

How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

November 20, 2016, New York Times

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

November 24, 2016, Washington Post

As Fake News Spreads Lies, More Readers Shrug at the Truth

December 6, 2016, New York Times

Fake news: an insidious trend that’s fast becoming a global problem

December 2, 2016,  The Guardian

Read all about it: The biggest fake news stories of 2016

December 30, 2016, CNBC

As time went on, these accusations of ‘fake news’ in their headlines got more grave and insidious. Clearly, there was a coordinated effort here among these left-wing churnalists to use the buzzword and associate it with Trump as often as possible.

Well, there has been an equal and opposite reaction to the left’s coordinated attack. Right-wing media fired back at the MSM with their own:

12 Fake News Stories from the Mainstream Media

November 22,2016, Breitbart

‘Fake News’ Isn’t Just a Rightwing Problem

November 26, 2016, National Review 

Mainstream media is the chief culprit behind ‘fake news’

December 6, 2016, The Hill

The Ultimate “FAKE NEWS” List

December 7, 2016, InfoWars

The 7 Worst Examples of Fake News From the Mainstream Media

December  10, 2016, Townhall

The Real ‘Fake News’ Comes From The Mainstream Media

December 19, 2016, Investor’s Business Daily

But the ultimate retaliatory death blow was fixed squarely on CNN from the man with the bully pulpit, then President-elect, Donald Trump. When Trump was fielding questions from the press corps, a CNN correspondent continuously interrupted him, begging for a question to ask. So Trump fired back, “No, I’m not going to give you a question. You are fake news.”

And in that very moment, the mainstream media lost the ‘Fake News’ War. One shot; many journalists killed (in terms of credibility).

Since then, the mainstream media has continued to take causalities. As reported previously here, the media’s trust is at all-time record lows and that trend is accelerating downward. This ‘fake news’ backfire was entirely predictable. If the mainstream media had a shred of humility, they would have recognized their devastatingly low position of trust, and as such, refrained from projecting their misdeeds onto the alternative media outlets. But Social Justice Warriors always double down; they can’t turn it off.

Even former Democratic Presidential contender, Bernie Sanders joked that, “Maybe he [Trump] was watching CNN, fake news, what do you think? …It was a joke.” Apparently, this hit quite the sore spot for CNN, and their producers abruptly “lost” his feed. The response Bernie received for his joke is par for the course as of late.

Washington Post, much like CNN, who previously went on an all out assault to sleigh anything that they construed as ‘fake news’ back in November and December, can’t handle the taste of their own medicine. Washington Post did an about-face, and in a true, Orwellian, double think fashion ran a new story condemning the labeling of ‘fake news’:

Shutting down fake news could move us closer to a modern-day ‘1984’

February 10, 2017, Washington Post

That’s right. Now that the label is sticking to WaPo, the act of labeling opposing opinions as ‘fake news’ is a form of 1984, Ministry of Truth, silencing technique. Interesting. Did that same standard apply when they hastily and unabashedly labeled the alternative, right-leaning media the same thing? Additionally, they openly waved the white flag stating:

It’s time to retire the tainted term ‘fake news’

February 8, 2017, Washington Post

‘Fake news’ has now lost all meaning

February 9, 2017, Washington Post

Unfortunately, for CNN, Washington Post, and the rest of mainstream media, you can’t command the public to turn off the weapon that you pointed at them first. It doesn’t work like that. This may very well go down as the all-time biggest backfires in mainstream media history. This label will continue to be pointed at the MSM, creating a feedback loop of confirmation bias every time the audience catches them in a lie or even an accidental misrepresentation of the truth. The label, ‘FAKE NEWS!’ will immediately be recalled and ascribed to them. This devastating damage will plague their credibility and trust long after their white flag of surrender has been torn in two.

The mainstream media has found their story. Nothing else could possibly compare to this horrifying executive action. President Trump has officially banned the citizens of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and Libya from entering the United States for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days.

The way the media’s coverage is being displayed, one would think that the news cycle is extremely devoid of other issues or events in the world today. And the intensity of the coverage on this one issue, the examination of countless angles, and the many interviews of those directly and indirectly effected, leave the audience to feel that this is a monumental event in U.S. history. Taking a quick spin through the self-proclaimed ‘unbiased’ and ‘objective’ mainstream media’s websites, a dark and disturbing message is being delivered.

At CNN 9 out of 9 of their stories located on the top, left side of the page are dedicated to Trump’s ban. CNN has cleared their entire, highly coveted, top left space on the site to cover this one executive order. But this is not the only impactful executive order that Trump has signed in his first week as POTUS. Why aren’t his other executive orders given the same spotlight?

As of Monday morning, 1/30/2017, President Trump has signed 15 executive orders. Among those, Trump signed authorization to: minimize the economic burden of Obamacare, commence immediate construction of a border wall, withdraw from TPP, green-light the Keystone XL Pipeline, ban the administration’s appointees from lobbying  for 5 years following their appointment, freeze hiring for all federal employees except the military, etc. Yet, judging by the mainstream media’s websites, you would think Trump had only signed one executive order.

In similar fashion, ABC News has 5 out of 11 of their ‘Top Stories’ on the topic of the immigration ban. Moreover, their key article pictures a black-dressed, militant march of ISIS fighters in the background of the story titled, ‘Trump’s Travel Ban Heightens Risk of Attacks in US, Homeland Security Expert Says.‘ This image was chosen specifically for it’s scary, ISIS militant imagery, which is used by ABC News to associate the fear of an ISIS attack with the potential consequences of Donald Trump’s ban. In fact, this is yet another example of the perpetuated, mainstream media narrative that Donald Trump is the next Hitler.

Scott Adams, creator of the ‘Dilbert’ cartoon and self-proclaimed hypnotist, has gone into extensive detail in his blogs to explain the Trump/Hitler association. He explains that we all have filters in which we view the world in order to make sense of it. This is an ongoing ‘movie script’ that plays in our heads, and ever since the recent campaign, Hillary Clinton’s team, along with the mainstream media, have promulgated this narrative that Donald Trump is the next Hitler ascending to power. People who consciously or unconsciously subscribe to this idea are constantly in search of confirmation bias to support it. Trump’s many other executive orders, appointments, and actions up to this point as president have lacked that militant, dictatorial quality necessary for this narrative to manifest. That is, until this executive order.

When the media finally received it’s nugget of confirmation bias, they cleared their slate of all other stories, and they have now applied sole focus on ‘the ban.’

To illustrate the sheer absurdity and pervasive nature of this narrative, even ESPN (owned by the Walt Disney Company along with ABC News) has dedicated a significant portion of their show, “First Take,” to one NBA player’s opposition to Trump’s travel ban. There are hundreds of professional athletes that have a multitude of opinions outside of their sport. Yet, this one opinion has been deemed ‘news worthy?’ Steve Kerr’s disapproval of the president’s policy is not sports’ news; it’s a designed interjection of a political hot topic onto an unsuspecting sports audience.

“If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re mis-informed.” – Mark Twain

MSN, a news aggregator, likewise shows 4 out of 4 of their top stories inside the top, left window box to be dedicated to the ban as well.

As for MSNBC 9 out of 10 of their ‘Top Stories’ combining those from NBC and MSNBC echoed that of the rest of mainstream media.

All of this fear enabled, media attention on this issue would leave one to believe that this move is unprecedented for a U.S. president. In fact, beloved Democrat, President Obama’s “State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011” as described by ABC News. There were no protests; there wasn’t a peep out these same people who today are literally shaking from Trump’s actions. Likewise, Democratic President Jimmy Carter banned “all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States” in 1980. Where was the outrage back then?

The narrative is clear. The people who swallow the volumes of articles, the emphasis and severity given to each one, and the manufactured, overall impact of this ban on the American landscape are being deliberately steered away from context and perspective. These readers are being made to believe that they have been informed of the truth, but the reality is that they are being conditioned to disproportionately respond to this executive action for a broader agenda, the demagoguery of the current president.

“The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.” – Thomas Jefferson

While occupying the office of President of the United States, Barack Obama had the single, most, influential impact that one man can have on current events. Some of the challenges of the day are self-created and others give rise of their own accord, but the president shapes the climate and attitudes of the nation within the often hazy, heat of the moment. Obama’s dusty prints have clouded America’s recent chapters, casting them into the dustbin of history.

‘The Most Transparent Administration’

Then

Upon the conclusion of George W Bush’s presidency, which was riddled with foreign wars and escalating debts, Barack Obama pledged to the American people ‘hope and change.’ The crux of this pledge was that of a transparent administration. In fact, on 1/21/2009, Obama’s 2nd day in office, President Obama declared, “Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”

Now

One way to quantify a presidency’s transparency is by studying their adeptness in handling Freedom of Information Act Requests. FOIA is a 50 year old law that gives citizens the right to access information from the federal government. Obviously, an administration that prides itself on transparency would go above and beyond to make sure the citizens’ requests are satisfied. Yet, as reported by PBS NewsHour, “the Obama administration set a record for censoring government files or outright denying access.” In fact, the Obama administration set a record in 2015 for either censoring or failing to send 77% of the requested files.

The American people felt the lack of transparency. In 2013, a Reason-Rupe poll found that 57% of Americans do not consider the Obama administration to be the most transparent in history. A year later, a Fox News poll echoed similar sentiments finding, “more than two-thirds — 68 percent — say no, this White House is not the most open and transparent.” Obama finished up his presidency, with a majority 59% feeling that he “mostly failed” on keeping his pledge of running a transparent administration.

Solyndra

Then

Solydnra was a California based company focusing on new technology in solar panels. This once mega-hyped solar panel startup raised over a billion dollars from private investors and over $535 million of tax-payer funds in the form of a loan backed by the Department of Energy. “It’s here that companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future,” said President Obama.

Now

‘Prosperous,’ Obama? The future shows that this is yet another classic example of government interfering in the free market, misallocating over a half of a billion dollars, and sticking the tax payers with the bill. When asked directly if Obama regretted the $535 million federal loan guarantee, he unremorsefully responded, “No, I don’t.”

Ahmed Mohamed a.k.a ‘Clock Boy’

Then

A firestorm rocked the country when 14 year old Ahmed entered his school with a disassembled then reassembled 1986 Radio Shack clock. This show-and-tell piece was encased, not in a traditional clock sphere or clock-radio shell, but instead in a briefcase. In a era of school bomb threats and terrorism, the public school with a zero tolerance policy sprung into action to assure the safety of all the students. This precaution resulted in the suspension and police handcuffing of Ahmed under the reasonable suspicion of this briefcase being a bomb. President Obama jumped at the opportunity to pick the side of the media manufactured, ‘oppressed’ minority over the safety of the local school children. Obama held up Ahmed as an inspiring, minority genius for the country to behold, and he even had him visit the White House.

Now

Aided by the reinforcement of the President of the United States, Ahmed’s family attempted to sue the Texas school district, the principal of the high school, and the city of Irving. This callous family has total disregard for their fellow community’s tax payers and for the implementation of the zero tolerance policy designed to ensure child safety. Fortunately, the court dismissed their case, and instead, their lawsuit has backfired completely. “Now that the lawsuit has been dismissed, the AFLC is petitioning the court for lawyer fees and sanctions against Clock Boy’s dad.”

Shooting of Michael Brown

Then

In the summer of 2014, 18 year old Michael Brown was shot and killed in Ferguson, MO by Darren Wilson, a white police officer, sparking a nationwide backlash that has pitted segments of communities against one another. The aftermath of this backlash has left stores burned to the ground, lives lost due to riots, and even murders of police officers in other states as retaliatory actions taken against police in general. How did President Obama react to the situation? Did he call for an immediate end to the violence? Did he calm the mob, and remind the nation to wait for the facts to come out through the investigation and trust in the verdict delivered by the courts?

Nope. Instead, much like the ‘clock boy’ situation, Obama chose a side. He said, “a gulf of mistrust exists between local residents and law enforcement…too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement — guilty of walking while black or driving while black…” Thanks Obama! As our first African American president, Barack Obama was in a unique position to bring credible persuasion to heal the wounds in both the law enforcement departments and Ferguson community at large. Instead, he used his power of influence to cast early judgement on law enforcement. The result fomented even greater anger at police across the nation. In turn, the ‘Ferguson Effect’ grew.

Now

Since Michael Brown, American cities have seen a decreased presence of proactive law enforcement. This is known as the Ferguson Effect. The effect is one of significant increases in violent crime in those communities due to the lack of police presence that lingers to this day.

Had Obama avoided the mob, he wouldn’t have landed on the wrong side of history. After a rigorous investigation, Darren Wilson was sparred of criminal charges. Even Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, added that the report was “fair and rigorous from the start,” and if you disagree with this verdict you need “to read the report in full.”

Obamacare

Then

The Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, was hyped up for its assurance that all Americans are covered by healthcare. This legislation was to be President Barack Obama’s crowning achievement. He expressed that “the bill I’m signing will set in motion reforms that generations of Americans have fought for and marched for and hungered to see.” According to Obama, this law was to be praised by Americans for its positive effects that would be felt for generations.

Now

Only, this law did not last generations; it didn’t even last a decade. With the American people so enormously dissatisfied with their limited options and increased premiums, the people have demanded it’s repeal. On January 11, 2017, “Senators voted 51-48 to approve a budget resolution that Republicans will use as a vehicle to speed through repeal of the Affordable Care Act.”

Guantanamo Bay

Then

Obama stated at least a half of a dozen times on national television during his election campaign and shortly after being sworn in that he would close Guantanamo Bay while president.

When interviewed on 60 Minutes on December 13, 2009, Steve Kroft asked, “There are a number of different things that you can take action on early pertaining to Executive Orders. One of them is to shut down Guantanamo Bay, another is to change interrogation methods that are used by U.S. troops. Are those things that you plan to take early action on?”

Obama replied, “Yes. I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I have said repeatedly that America doesn’t torture; I’m going to make sure that we don’t torture.” ‘Follow through,’ he did not.

Now

The Obama administration is acknowledging publicly for the first time that he will be unable to fulfill this core campaign promise. Although it’s long been clear that President Obama would not be able to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison, the White House had continued to maintain that he was working toward closing it.

Conclusion

You judge a tree by it’s fruits. Obama’s presidency has left the nation more divided on racial issues, twice as much in debt than all previous presidents combined, and the only change that America felt was the loss of hope that this president was going to be different.