Mainstream Media’s New Slogan – ‘Seriously, We’re Not Fake News!’

Mainstream Media’s New Slogan – ‘Seriously, We’re Not Fake News!’

“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-this-morning-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.


Mainstream Media’s Buzzword – ‘Fake News’ – Now Waving the White Flag of Surrender

Mainstream Media’s Buzzword – ‘Fake News’ – Now Waving the White Flag of Surrender

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

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.”

The rest of the leftist mainstream media outlets enthusiastically picked up the marching orders from Media Matters and followed suit. Below are just a few examples of mainstream media’s headlines creating that “early warning for fake news“:

The plague of fake news is getting worse — here’s how to protect yourself

November 1, 2016, CNN

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.

Another CNN reporter, Chris Cuomo said on SiriusXM, “I see being called ‘fake news’ as the equivalent of the N-word for journalists, the equivalent of calling an Italian any of the ugly words that people have for that ethnicity.” He later apologized, but the fact remains…this label boomerang has cut them deep.

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 Narrative of Trump’s Immigration Ban

The Narrative of Trump’s Immigration Ban

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.’

espn-discusses-trump-immigration-banTo 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

When the Dust Settled…

When the Dust Settled…

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’


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.


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.



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.


‘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’


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.


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


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.


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.”



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.


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


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.


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.


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.

Americans Cast Celebrities Aside 

Americans Cast Celebrities Aside 

It’s over. Done. The foggy, non-argument, group think, appeal to authority spell that was the Hollywood celebrity influence over politics has been lifted!  Many celebrities are just now waking up to this reality; I’m afraid, still many more haven’t even considered it as a possibility.

It’s no secret that marketers tie their products to famous people to drive sales. Celebrities have been proven to deliver a perception of an unbiased endorsement that the target audience wouldn’t receive from the producer directly.

Politics is a different type of sale. Politicians, special interests, and the latest cause célèbres have relished in the attachment of their message to celebrities. Just one problem, the American people are no longer buying it.

A majority of Americans (49% to 46%) surveyed believe that “celebrities should stay out of politics” all together according to a CBS News/New York Times poll. Additionally, Gallup found that nearly two thirds (64%) say celebrities have little, if any, influence on Washington decision-makers. Even the successful Trump campaign when approached about the subject stated that it “wasn’t all that interested in peddling celebrity backers.”

In order to win an election, politicians must drive new voters to the polls, and these days, those new voters are the coveted millennials. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, millennials differ “from the youth of the two previous generations, parents have considerable influence on Millennial’s political views,” and “celebrities ranked as having minimal or least influence.”  Celebrity Studies concurred finding that millennials “are more likely to listen to individuals other than celebrities for their own political information.” So why then are there so many synthetic, celebrity compilation videos delivering these unified political messages?

With an ever increasing, often conflicting, presence of online stories vying for our validation, the only rational approach is one of skepticism. Celebrities are used with the intent to melt away this hard coated skeptical shell allowing the political message to seep in. And the 2016 election cycle, like many election cycles before it, was no different when it comes to celebrity political outreach.

Leading up to Tuesday, November 8, 2016—Election Day—everyone’s favorite celebrities left no doubt what their adoring fans were to do….vote! They even joked about the absurdity of their request by saying the only way to communicate the importance of our vote is by having “a shit ton of famous people repeat[ing] how important it is to register and vote.

We didn’t listen. Insert one Donald Trump into the presidency.

The strategy failed. But despite this fact, in true social justice fashion, what did the celebrities do? They doubled down of course—well, kind of—this time they could only scrounge up a group of C list celebrities (and Martin Sheen) to virtue signal for all of the internet to see. Rhetoric level elevated to: ‘No Longer Joking Level!‘ The celebrities pleaded with the electoral college members by beginning, “as you know, our Founding Fathers, built the electoral college to safeguard us against a demagogue, and to ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is ‘to an eminent degree, endowed with the requisite qualifications.’

The electoral college didn’t listen either.

Wow! Ok. How dense is America? These once-valiant celebrities are pouring their hearts out on screen, reading scripted line after scripted line, without even the possibility of winning an Oscar, only to find their words ignored. Rhetoric level now elevated to: ‘Dire Warning, Name Calling Level!‘ Weeks before Trump’s inauguration day, celebrities pleaded with Congress much the same professing that the “majority of Americans-regardless of who they voted for-did not vote for: racism, sexism, or for xenophobia. Yet, Donald Trump won.

Will Congress listen to their vapid, unspecified, ad hominems?

Current trends indicate that the celebrity slack-tivism is an utter failure. In fact, so much so, that these political celebrity endorsements have become a negative asset, sinking the very cause they wish to enact. Still many celebrities are blind to the damage caused by their incessant badgering of Americans.

This fact didn’t stop Meryl Streep though. She took to the stage during the recent Golden Globes and began her speech by casting her and the audience of Hollywood celebrities, as “the most vilified segments in American society right now.” Though she has correctly identified that average Americans find her like distasteful, she still framed herself as the victim. “Vilified??

Despite lessons remaining unlearned by many celebrities, there are some rays of hope escaping the toxic, smug infested hills of Hollywood. Some celebrities have read the writing on the wall and witnessed the glaring hypocrisy of many of their cohorts, and they have begun to speak out against it.

Randy Quaid, in an open letter to Meryl Streep, stated “…The reason you’re heartbroken is because you and many other celebrities who share your beliefs realized on November 8th that the corporate media agenda has failed you and you failed it.

Norm Macdonald tweeted his opposition to Streep’s pretentious elevation of ‘the art’ of acting over other entertainment professions like MMA and football.

Even Mark Wahlberg in December of 2016, when asked for comment on celebrities in politics said, “A lot of celebrities did, do, and shouldn’t…You know, it just goes to show you that people aren’t listening to that anyway,” he continued. “They might buy your CD or watch your movie, but you don’t put food on their table. You don’t pay their bills. A lot of Hollywood is living in a bubble.

Celebrities on the left will continue to refuse to humble themselves and perform the necessary self-reflection in order to become an influential voice. In the meantime, the rest of America, working to put food on the table, will continue to sift past the garbage of celebrity politicking, and fill themselves on the aspects of America that truly makes her great.

The Installment of Silence

The Installment of Silence
“The distrust of wit is the beginning of tyranny.” ― Edward Abbey

In the wake of a massive ideological shift in America, what has been the response of the online goliaths of media? Have they confessed any intellectual impotences in their argument? Have the leftist outlets sought to open up dialogue, taking an honest approach to understanding the sentiments, positions, and reasons of more than half of the country who strongly disagree with their collectivist ideology?

The mainstream outlets and aggregators have begun to clear an old trail, a trail all too familiar to history’s long, dark suppression of ideas. They are instituting new-age, dimming policies in an effort to snuff out those who dare express an alternative perspective to their own.

The most damaging authoritarian implementation of this censorship comes from Facebook’s commitment to fight ‘fake news.’ Instead of mark-zuckerberg-meets-with-chinaletting Facebook’s many users compete in the free market of ideas, Facebook has literally taken a play out of the Chinese-style, censorship playbook. Mark Zuckerberg  met with China’s chief propagandist in March of 2016, and today, Facebook has undergone assessments to determine ‘if the web sites that are the source of stories flagged by the community come from a legitimate media organization or a site that masquerades as one.’

You may recall the alternative media trounced the mainstream narratives in 2016 victoriously mounting meme battles, which delivered witty facts in a quick and impactful way. Likewise, many new voices in alternative media have built large, successful platforms that generate true journalism in the free market of ideas. Facebook has now made a public decree to disappear those whom disseminate news that contradicts Big Brother.

Even if you are concerned with untruths circulating the inter-webs, in a free society, we should expose the worst ideas to the most amount of sunlight. In this way, these ideas crumble where all can see; thus, these bad ideas or complete falsehoods are blocked from traveling underground only to resurface later in horrifying ways.

Perhaps no media outlet is suffering a bigger defeat in 2016 than Vice. Vice’s platform is one that attempts to mesh truly eye opening journalism from across the globe with trendy, counter-culture taboos, like indulging in weed and pornography as a life-style choice.

vice-picSince one side of Vice’s dual mission has delivered mega truth bombs on a wide variety of current events for a couple of decades now, they have, in turn, generated a more savvy millennial subscriber who seeks hard fought journalistic content not produced by the other mainstream media outlets. These subscribers are often very engaged in deconstructing mainstream narratives. But there in lies the problem for Vice. With a more intelligent subscriber base, Vice’s audience have a greater bullshit detector and a more vocalized voice in which to express it than those of other mainstream media outlets.

Vice is suffering brand destabilizing damages in their comment’s section on their website. Just gaze upon one such example found on their Facebook page. It’s more common than not to find that the top trending comments are engagingly critical of the article’s position. So much so in fact, the top comments often collectively have a larger number of ‘likes’ than the article itself. Vice may not be able to disable the comments section on Facebook, but that hasn’t stopped them from silencing feedback and ideas on their own site. They have publicly declared the end of their own comments section on their website. This is a strong admission that they have lost the intellectual debate, and they know it.


Even news aggregator giant, Reddit, has taken the low road of deceit since the election of Donald Trump. Last month, Reddit CEO, Steve Huffman, reluctantly confessed his  personal attempt of censorship. Huffman altered members of “The_Donald” subreddit’s posts ‘without their knowledge or consent’.steve-hoffman-ceo-of-reddit

As the CEO, I shouldn’t play such games, and it’s all fixed now. Our community team is pretty pissed at me, so I most assuredly won’t do this again,” Huffman wrote.

Though Reddit does disavow this failed, covert act of censorship, they do not disavow censorship itself. Instead, they have doubled down, taking on a more overt style of squashing dissent. In a followup article, Business Insider describes Reddit as ‘now taking a more hands-on approach in monitoring the tone of the site and disciplining users who are out of line — even if they don’t merit being kicked off the site entirely. They can now also warn users for bad behaviour, or give them “timeouts,” as well as permanent bans.’

The giant players in charge of the facilitation of free debate in the modern day town square  of the internet have resigned from this role, and instead, they have assumed the role of guillotine operator of ideas. As the establishment media continues forward finding themselves on the losing side of the debate, we will witness much more chilling acts of censorship, silencing any popular and enlightened, opposing view.

Retrofitting a Legacy, Pt. 2 – The Marijuana Obstacle

Retrofitting a Legacy, Pt. 2 – The Marijuana Obstacle

Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d been headed; the final fatal role of the would-be black man…” – Barack Obama

In the previous post, Retrofitting a Legacy, examples were given of outgoing President Obama’s attempts to appeal to millennials. The White House is targeting millenials through memes and media outlets such as Vice to deliver the message of a ‘cool’ presidency that was. A presidency that saw an actual fulfillment of the ‘hope and change’ that was promised to the hazy, dewy-eyed faces of millennials.

marijuana-favorability-poll-numbersBarack Obama smoked weed into his early adulthood, much like that of millennials today. In fact, according to Pew Research, “Millennials – those ages 18 to 35 in 2016 – are more than twice as likely to support legalization of marijuana as they were in 2006 (71% today, up from 34% in 2006), and are significantly more likely to support legalization than other generations.”President Obama knows this information. As witnessed in the picture above, as well as what was written by his very own, sticky icky fingers, Barry Obama was a giant pothead. Instant credibility with the majority of millennials… he’s just like us!

There’s just one problem, if he’s been president for 8 years, why is marijuana still illegal to smoke in the vast majority of states? How come young adults are still seeing massive incarceration rates for non-violent drug offenses? Wouldn’t this president, one who has long indulged in the exact same recreation, yearn for the day when he could finally do something about it? At least, if for nothing else, he’d want to evade the glaringly massive hypocrisy of partaking in an illegal activity for years and then forbiding others from doing the same. An activity so illegal, that, had he been arrested for it, it would have hindered him from becoming president in the first place. Surely, this president would do anything in his power to change this law…

In a recent Rolling Stone article from Nov. 29, 2016, President Barack Obama said the following when asked about legalizing marijuana, “But I do believe that treating this as a public-health issue, the same way we do with cigarettes or alcohol, is the much smarter way to deal with it. Typically how these classifications are changed are not done by presidential edict but are done either legislatively or through the DEA.” 

obama-smoking-weed-jointOk, Obama definitely just passed the buck off to the DEA or congress. So, if only they can reclassify marijuana away from it’s current Schedule I Controlled Substances Act classification, then who appoints the chief of the DEA? The president does. If Barack Obama desired that marijuana be reclassified, he could have selected someone who shares his views to head the DEA. But he didn’t. Better still, Obama consciously chose against it.

Even though he decided not to pursue marjiuana classification, can we really hold Obama solely accountable for all the non-violent drug offenders’ sentences  being carried out during his presidency? Yes, actually we can.

ron-paul-speaks-to-about-pardoning-non-violent-drug-offendersDuring his 2012 presidential run, then Congressman, Ron Paul, weighed in on how, constitutionally, as president, he would handle this very situation. Adam Kokesh of RT asked, “So are you saying that you would pardon all non-violent [drug] offenders?” Ron Paul responded, “If somebody is in prison, for non-violence drug uses, never committed a hard crime, yes. They should be pardoned, and they should be let out.

President Barack Obama has this very power right now. But instead of delivering Americans, in particular the youth, a solid appointment of someone empathetic to the legalization of marijuana, and unshackeling millions of downtroddened Americans through a presidential pardon, Obama has remained cowardice and done neither.

But don’t be disillusioned, he won’t remain silent on the issue. We will continue to see retrofitting strategies, much like the excuses in the Rolling Stone article, implemented on millennials to view these failures as ‘simply insurmountable obstacles’ that are out of the scoop of president, and his cowardice and hypocrisy will be framed as an ever-championing, step-by-step progression towards justice.

Retrofitting a Legacy

Retrofitting a Legacy

Looking at the Obama Administration objectively, what would you say are his accomplishments?

The obvious one that comes to mind is Obamacare. How did that work? Let’s just say, with insurance premiums skyrocketing, this nauseating, often tearful, cornerstone of his legacy is not drawing anticipation of an erected statue in his homage.

Ok, what else? Pundits have mentioned the killing of Osama Bin Laden as a crowning achievement. But does a Nobel Peace Price recipient deem a murder to be a proud staple of his legacy? He shouldn’t. What’s left? A somewhat anemic economy surviving off of life saving, low interest rates, bailouts, and a $10 trillion additional debt. That’s not exactly a robust advancement that will leave a favorable impression with the American people long after he leaves the White House.  What about race relations? Obama was championed as our first, post-racial president who has come to heal a divided nation. How did that turn out? Well, the “Washington Post-ABC News poll found a 55 percent majority saying Obama had done more to divide the country than bring it together.

But Barack Obama instilled an expectation of hope and change on his way in the door. The branding of these terms will always be synomous with Obama. When people quickly scan their minds for evidence of the accomplishment of these promises, they will come up empty. What then? Either an extreme form of cognitive dissonance will set in or the individual will realize Barack Obama’s presidency was a failure.

What can a lame duck president do to assuage this massive disparity between hope and change and what was actually delivered? Retrofit his brand. img_5604

The White House has embarked on a subtle marketing campaign targeting the perception of millennials. Hitting the social media networks like a shattering earthquake, Obama and Biden memes can be seen and felt reverberating ceaselessly for few weeks now. The obvious draw for the adminatration is the associative property of humor linked with the outgoing president and vice president. An association that was not there for you when you saw insurance premiums jump, but one that the president hopes will linger in your mind when you reflect on his presidency.

Millennials love memes. They are incredibly eye catching, and easy to absorb with very little time investment. Plus many are hilarious.

The White House has taken a direct play out of the freshly enacted and extremely successful Donald Trump playbook. As it stands, the WH and the left branch of the establishment have already lost The Great Meme War. Oh yeah, it’s a thing. And Trump has vanquished his enemy by allowing the humor and the organic ingenuity of the internet fight his battles and create an image for him tailored towards millennials. But the Obama administration just now seems to be showing up to the fight with their synthetic attempts.

In addition to memes, Barack Obama has sat down for a soon to air one-on-one with the CEO of Vice, Shane Smith, for a Special Report: A House Divided (HBO). In it, the president and many other top, elected government officials elaborate on their perspective as to why there is some grid lock in Washington. I insert the word ‘some’ here because, although these politicians would try to convince you otherwise, there is far too much bipartisanship in key areas that are destroying the country, war and debt to name a couple.


The goal of this Vice interview is to associate the Obama presidency as not a failed application of hope and change for America, but instead, that of an amiable, in touch president who tirelessly strove to achieve greatness for our country only to be thwarted by a solely fringe, right-wing opposition in Congress. It’s no accident that Vice was given this in-depth interview. Vice caters to millennials, which is a key demographic that elected Obama and one that will be voting for many decades to come.

These efforts are only the beginning of the next 60 day push to repurpose, dust off, and add to a branding image that elected Obama into the White House. Keep an eye out for them; a well distinguished legacy is imperative for a president  and the future of his ideology.

John Oliver’s Here to the Rescue!


Humor is an incredibly powerful persuasion technique. That’s common sense. We’re influenced by those we like, and humor makes us feel good.  But when it’s utilized to frame otherwise perceived humorless and uninteresting topics, such as politics, to a benighted audience, one can easily be lulled into a passive adherent.

A vast majority of millennials will boastfully admit their distaste and disinterest for politics like that of an attitude towards the latest Nickelback single (I know, I know, too easy). Yet, a very loud minority think of themselves as true intellectuals. And, when set against their peers, it’s easy to see why. But they forgot, or were never truly taught, that the key to knowledge is being able to think independently.

Like that of Aristotle succeeding his predecessors of Plato and Socrates, John Oliver has a true advantage of standing on the shoulders of giants before him, namely, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart. For a decade and a half, nearly the entire formative years of millennials, these comedians have been satirizing an otherwise treacherous, political landscape to an audience who, under any other condition, would be retreating to a ‘safe space.’screen-shot-2016-11-17-at-7-11-54-pm

The Season Finale of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver aired this past Sunday, 11/13/2016. Starting at 20:30, John said, “He [Donald Trump] is a man who would kick you in the nuts and then tell you that your penis did it. So the press is going to face challenges…You need to support actual journalism by buying a subscription to outlets like the Times or the Post or your local newspaper.

John Oliver made a clear pitch to millennials to buy newspaper subscriptions. He did so by setting the purchase of the newspapers as a weapon against the great enemy of his show for the past year, one who his audience would do nearly anything to stop, Donald Trump. Simple, subtle, framing and pitch, but what was the impact? As pointed out in a previous post, the New York Times 3rd quarter revenue has fallen 95.7%. This is in large part due to its fallacious coverage of then candidate, Donald Trump. So the New York Times is in desparate need of a resurgence.

Well, the New York Times on 11/17/2016 was proud to announce that “…the seven-day period since Election Day, it had a net increase of 41,000 paid subscriptions to its news products, both print and digital…” That is to say, for half of the week outlined above by the New York Times, John Oliver’s message has been driving millennials to fund the Times. Now, this is not the sole driver of the increase in subscriptions, the election itself drove traffic to all media outlets over the past week. But, Oliver’s influence over the self-described intellectuals on the left cannot be overstated. Utilizing his humor, he has an ability to persuade them to action.

John Oliver’s format is the tip of the spear for the left in the new media landscape. The old newspaper chains are losing in the free market. Their subscriptions are way down. But the power of Oliver’s humor is now being concentrated to rescue the fallen media outlets in battle.  For those of us in the information war battling on the front lines, fix your sights on John Oliver (figuratively speaking 😉 ).



Trust, Mainstream Media’s Greatest Enemy

“Life and trust can be lost only once” – Publilius Syrus

The mainstream media failed. It failed to take Donald Trump seriously, it failed to report on his candidacy objectively, and it failed to treat it’s audience as customers as opposed to cattle to be propagandized. And now, the numbers are in to tell the story.

First, let’s take a look at Gallup since they tell the recent history of the mainstream media’s trust with the public. The trends have been in decline for more than a decade, but the tail end shows an acceleration. Not coincidentally, 2015 is when Donald Trump entered the political arena, and as of September 2016, we’ve seen an 8% further descent in the media’s trust.

Back in April 2016, Media Insight Project released their polling on the media’s trust. The results are appalling. They found that only 6% of Americans expressed “a lot of confidence” in the press! That’s less than Congress’s approval rating hovering in the mid-teens.

There are a lot of theories as to the drastic decline. The media has been exposed. As Stefan Molyneux puts it [paraphrasing] “for the first time ever, the people are able to break down stories in real time.” Citizen journalism is on the rise. Every American has access to information and dozens of sources to find many angles and facets to a story. Pictures uploaded to Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram remove the once flowery, subjective reporting of events to reveal indisputable accuracy. Additionally, social media enables us to break through the once perceived isolation of our own ideas. We can now easily see friends and family who share similar or differing viewpoints and rapidly link sources that strengthen or combat those ideas, policies, and theories. The internet is a free market of ideas, and like all free markets, competition delivers efficiency and finer tuned precision on those ideas.

The mainstream media has been the gatekeepers to knowledge of events and stories for centuries. Following the money, we know where their allegiance resides. But Donald Trump has cultivated an atmosphere that has turbo charged their bias. In the greatest effort to prevent his presidency, they sunk even lower. And the people have noticed.

The Media Research Center (MRC) released a post-election poll depicting the evisceration of trust that formerly laid in center of the media’s utility. They found that “7 in 10 (69%) voters do not believe the news media are honest and truthful.”

These three polls above describe a much deserved and rapid decline in the mainstream media’s trust with America today. Feel energized and emboldened, the truth’s numbers are now in a rapid incline.

The New York Times ‘Rededicates’ to Report ‘Honestly’

After The New York Times reported 95.7 percent fall in quarterly profit AND demonstrated extreme bias against Trump all election season…

a NYT publisher writes:

“As we reflect on this week’s momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.”

Did you catch that? “…aim to rededicateto report America and the world honestly
What have you been doing?!! That’s a P.C. way of saying, “we got caught lying, we’ll try not being so obvious about that going forward.”

This is why only 6% of Americans trust the Mainstream Media.

See the letter read below addressed the the readers.


PBS Vaccine Propaganda for Children

Hey parents, it’s 2:00pm on a Friday afternoon, do you know where your kids are? Well, if your kids are like most, they are sitting in front of the TV watching childhood programming on PBS, Nick Jr., or Disney. But, what are these shows teaching them other than the alphabet and arithmetic?

Click here to view PBS Vaccine Propaganda for Children. In this show, PBS’s Sid the Science Kid is a childhood program designed to promote education on the sciences. But, the below episode is much more than an education; it’s an indoctrination.

Screen Shot 2015-09-04 at 5.15.36 PMThe episode starts off with a child excited for his grandmother to come to school. Turns out, his grandmother, “a scientist,” has come baring gifts of this year’s flu vaccine. Sid the Science Kids‘ writers intentionally labelled the nurse-practitioner figure, the grandmother, as a ‘scientist.’ Why? Well, calling her a ‘scientist’ immediately evokes a strong sense of credibility with the students, and with anyone for that matter. That’s because a ‘scientist’ adheres to the strictest of standards, the scientific method. Simply calling her a nurse would make her sound like this is just her job to inoculate kids, but calling her a ‘scientist’ means she’s done the tough scientific rigger to know just how the vaccine works and just how “good it is for you.”

The kids are a little apprehensive at first, not because they doubt the effectiveness, but because of the pain of the injection. Don’t worry, a little song and dance cleared that right up for them. The use of song and dance is a powerful tool in overcoming hesitation because children and their parents dissociate the discomfort of the vaccine and any potential adverse risks as non-existent and something to be easily assuaged.
Screen Shot 2015-09-04 at 1.27.09 PM

The sole purpose of exposing the content of this episode to young children is to operantly condition them to accept vaccinations annually, but not just at the doctor’s office, but in their school, away from their parents! Sure, all four kids got their permission slips signed, but vaccines are not to be implemented at a government school. If done at all, they should be administered at a doctor’s office or a pharmacy with parents next to their children. This separation of the children from the parents cannot simply be overlooked; it’s a strategic usurpation designed to undermine parents’ rights over time and replace them with the government as the ultimate authority figure.

Further, what if you don’t give the government your permission to inoculate your kid during the school day? What do you think this teacher and the rest of the class will say? “Oh, Johnny, your parents must not love you because they don’t care about your health…” when just the opposite is true. This tactic of school inoculations will create the sting of social ostracization that will drive a wedge between the child and the parent. More parents will opt-in due to this societal pressure.

Maybe the parents who don’t decide to opt their kids in to a flu shot (I never liked the term “opt-out,” as if the default position is that you always take a vaccine) have actually done some research or live in the real world. Throughout the entire episode, the teacher, the ‘scientist,’ and students proudly exclaim how they will be perfectly protected because they got the shot. Hmmm…not according to the CDC they won’t be. Even according to the CDC’s own fudged numbers, the wrong strain of flu was in 81% of flu vaccines in 2014.

“When VE (Vaccine Effectiveness) against all influenza viruses was combined, the overall VE estimate was 19% (95% CI: 7%– 29%). In practical terms, this means the flu vaccine reduced a person’s risk of having to seek medical care at a doctor’s office for flu illness by 19%.” – CDC, 2015 

So, perhaps the parents don’t want to take the risk of their kids acquiring Non-influenza Respiratory Virus Infections, Increased Risk of Cardiovascular Events, Narcolepsy, Alzheimer’s, Anaphylaxis, Febrile Seizures, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and Dystonia, a neurological movement disorder, due to the vaccine for a possible 19% ‘protection’ against the flu. (These adverse reactions are all documented with credible sources here).

As if the song and dance and light hearted cartoon wasn’t enough to convince you to get the shot, the show goes on to show real people receiving a flu vaccine. This again is built in as a reinforcing mechanism that people just like you are taking these steps towards getting vaccinated.

This programming episode was designed for one thing, to increase the profits of PBS’s investors, big pharamceutical companies. They are trying to create a customer for life by conditioning the youth. Also, this show is a reminder for parents to blindly follow their directions and get their kid inoculated each and every year. This type of propaganda is around us all the time, what kind of attention are we paying to it?

Commercialized & Conditioned to Lose Our Rights

You may have noticed by the title that this post is not about the discussion of vaccination and it’s dangers. This video makes the case that our rights are being violated through the use of commercialized propaganda invoking humor, sex, or non-threatening characters coupled with the TSA (Transportation Security Administration).

Everyone has the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; yet, the TSA’s fundamental purpose and existence directly violates this right by it’s very nature. From Nazi propaganda to Edward Bernay’s public relations campaigns, governments historically have sponsored and coordinated efforts with major corporations and media outlets to deliver a narrative of acceptance of rights lost in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.

This is just a modern day example of that. Click Commercialized & Conditioned to Lose Our Rights to view now.

For the Blog