Online Personalities and Comedians Overtake TV and Newspapers as Primary News Sources (hollywoodreporter.com) 123
A new Ipsos poll finds Americans are increasingly getting news from online personalities and comedians instead of traditional TV or newspapers. The survey says nearly 70% get news online in a given week, versus 55% from TV and 25% from newspapers, with figures like Joe Rogan, Greg Gutfeld, Sean Hannity, and late-night hosts ranking prominently depending on political leanings. From the Hollywood Reporter: The poll, which was conducted in March, actually found the conservative politicians and cabinet members, including President Trump, were the top news influencers. When politicos were excluded, Joe Rogan led the list, followed by Fox News personalities Greg Gutfeld and Sean Hannity, and then TuckerCarlson and Ben Shapiro. The only three influencers to crack 10 percent were Trump, Rogan, and JD Vance. Among people who voted for Kamala Harris, the top news personalities were late night hosts, led by ABC's Jimmy Kimmel, followed by CBS Late Show host Stephen Colbert, and Daily Show host Jon Stewart.
Just under 70 percent of respondents said they get their news online in a given week, compared to 55 percent for TV, and 25 percent for newspapers. [...] Of traditional media outlets, TV dominated, with Fox News, the broadcast networks, and CNN topping the list of sources. Facebook, YouTube and Instagram were the most popular online news sources. "On these platforms opinionated personalities and comedians appear to drown out anyone who would fit in the traditional journalist category," said assistant professor of practice and Jordan Center Executive Director Steven L Herman. "Even in the late 19th century and early 20th centuries, sensationalist and polarizing voices in print and later on air were among the most influential in the political landscape -- such as political satirist Mark Twain and populist Father Charles Coughlin."
Just under 70 percent of respondents said they get their news online in a given week, compared to 55 percent for TV, and 25 percent for newspapers. [...] Of traditional media outlets, TV dominated, with Fox News, the broadcast networks, and CNN topping the list of sources. Facebook, YouTube and Instagram were the most popular online news sources. "On these platforms opinionated personalities and comedians appear to drown out anyone who would fit in the traditional journalist category," said assistant professor of practice and Jordan Center Executive Director Steven L Herman. "Even in the late 19th century and early 20th centuries, sensationalist and polarizing voices in print and later on air were among the most influential in the political landscape -- such as political satirist Mark Twain and populist Father Charles Coughlin."
Idiocracy (Score:3)
I respect many of those comedians for their satire, but not getting news from newspapers is a recipie for idiocracy.
Re: (Score:2)
In other news, Americans are getting dumber.
Re: Idiocracy (Score:2)
On balance, it would appear to be the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Ow my balls!
Re: Idiocracy (Score:2)
It's got electrolytes
Re: (Score:2)
That movie to this day cracks me up. Probably watched it over 10 times by now. I laugh just as much every time.
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite problematic in its eugenetic message that dumb people breed dumber children, but smart people breed smarter children, and the average population IQ is therefore a result of breeding patterns. It doesn't even try to tackle things like access to education.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, you do realize that was not a documentary right? I do realize however it looks like we are heading in that direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, it's a satirical sci-fi comedy that attributes the lowering average IQ of the population to the dumb outbreeding the smart.
Re: (Score:2)
In other news, Americans are getting dumber.
Only those listening to only one side. Those listening to multiple sides, whether that side is being serious or humorous at the moment, are getting smarter. Humor has long been a tool to spark conversation and debate.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I respect many of those comedians for their satire, but not getting news from newspapers is a recipie for idiocracy.
And why exactly are we to assume "newspapers" will somehow be automatically less corrupt than the (often-owned-by) media companies provably so? Especially when many are digital-only distribution, able to be edited on-the-Wiki-fly? Most of the larger newspapers in America were founded more than a century ago. It would be interesting to bring a fact-checker back from that time to validate where newspaper integrity is today.
I'm supposed to believe the LA Times would be unbiased and accurate when reporting a
Re:Idiocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you read a newspaper lately? The coverage and quality isn't what it used to be. I subscribe to two, and donate to a nonprofit newsroom; the latter and one of the subscriptions are local and the other is a "highly regarded" national paper. I can't read the last one after dinner as it is just too depressing. Across the board though, there isn't much real national coverage of things that might anger Trump.
So I switch to Colbert for my evening news capsule. There is enough humor to make up for just how deeply troubling some things are. No, it isn't a primary source of information but it can be a nice way to expose yourself to the pollitics without getting too stressed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I still subscribe to magazines and get those delivered because I want my grandkids to see what printed periodicals look like. Content is pretty ridiculous though.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. We should all get our information from news outlets owned by billionaire oligarchs.
Re: (Score:2)
Arguably, it's the "news' which got us into this quagmire in the first place.
I can't possibly imagine why anyone would ascribe their "truth" from organizations which have consistently and intentionally lied to the American public. Hubris, I suppose.
Listening to multiple biased media can help (Score:2)
I can't possibly imagine why anyone would ascribe their "truth" from organizations which have consistently and intentionally lied to the American public. Hubris, I suppose.
That includes the two major political parties too?
That said, listening to biased media is not necessarily bad. It's only troublesome when a person only listen's to one sides biased media. Listening to multiple biased sides is more informative. If for no other reason than biased source occasionally do tell the truth, they do so when the truth happens to align with their politics. Listening to multiple sides, applying your own common sense and experience, looking up some raw data, listening to a debate bet
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue both major political parties (and then some), yes.
Those pamphlets are nice, my state does something similar. It's problematic, however, when both sides are lying outright and it's hard to split the difference without looking at the actual bills/amendments/provisions. That seems often to be the case. It's also common for "one side"s rebuttal is actually the other side's strawman rebuttal, which may or may not be due to either malice or intellectual deficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, on occasion, the debate is on a topic one may know something about through experience. And sometimes friends and family have relevant experience. Not opinion, but actual experience. If close enough for an honest conversation, that can be helpful.
For example I have an uncle that is a doctor and spent many decades in private practice. His experience was an incredible resource for understanding the healthcare debate and see th
The wealthy owning news outlets is not new (Score:2)
Indeed. We should all get our information from news outlets owned by billionaire oligarchs.
That's often been the case for much of history, scaling "billionaire" to adjust for the currency of the day.
Re: (Score:2)
"Journalism" nowadays is just a bunch of biased people that spend the whole day on twitter instead of doing actual investigations and fact check.
So, people just go for the same thing but funny
Truthful elements coming from multiple sides (Score:2)
"Journalism" nowadays is just a bunch of biased people that spend the whole day on twitter instead of doing actual investigations and fact check.
That's not terribly different than in the days of newspapers. Newspapers often had a political bias, their investigations and fact checks biased. More through commission than lies. Sometimes more ignorant of the technical topic at hand than biased. Which is why the key is to listen to multiples sides, even if they are all biased. It helps one discover the truth. Each source can be judged for accuracy.
Consider for a moment some area where you are technically knowledgable. How often does a well meaning but
Re: (Score:3)
You can think what you like about comedians, but humor is always a good thing and the ability to poke fun at everyone (left and right) brings more balance to the news than a lot of news sources out there.
Humor is very much missing from public discourse these days, especially among the current crop of right-wing politicians. I judge a person on their sense of humor. The ability to not take one's self so seriously is as important as the ability to think critically. A genuine warmth of character. I remember
Re: (Score:2)
The result is now people think Trump invaded Iran because Epstein had dirt on Trump, and Epstein is a Mossad agent (and Epstein is still alive).
I don't care if people think or joke around about that, but the constant focus on that kind of thing makes it hard to figure out what is really happening. Hard hitting news is that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have been pushing hard for an invasion of Iran.
Re: (Score:2)
Since Biden's Admin had all the same files on Epstein as the Trump admin has, I'm going to say there probably isn't enough REAL evidence to do anything with, otherwise why didn't Biden's DOJ use it? Believe me, I would LOVE to see all those rich and powerful go down for their crimes, but Epstein has been dead since August of 2019...It's April of 2026, nearly 7 entire years later and we still don't have all the information.
I suspect Trump listened to his advisors on Iran, as well as pressure from Gulf State
All sides lie or make errors, need multiple sides (Score:2)
The problem is comedians can lie (and that is what they are supposed to do).
So do politicians. So do journalists, sometimes due to low information on a topic, sometimes due to political bias. The key to discovering the truth is to listen to multiple sides. No source is entirely truthful, they tell the truth when it happens to align with their politics or limited understanding.
Re: (Score:1)
I realize you're likely approaching retirement age based on your low slashdot ID (as am I), but the world has not only changed - it's made it apparent that the world we grew up in didn't even exist.
Perhaps you should look into the involvement of various intelligence agencies (CIA, Mossad) in the control and manipulation of various esteemed "institutions of truth" like the New York Times, as it relates to things which were obviously false. Or how many of our vanguard institutions were largely subverted by co
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, newspapers make mistakes. But that doesn't mean your random conspiracy theory is somehow correct. You should put your wild ideas to the same test for veracity as you put the newspapers.
YES, the Charlie Kirk ballistics test was inconclusive. NO, that doesn't mean the CIA or Mossad killed Charlie Kirk, you are an utter nincompoop for believing that (because you believe things without looking for evidence to support the hypothesis
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to assume you're not aware of the incontrovertible evidence done by John Bray and others proving that the "ballistic tests were inconclusive" is hardly the tip of the iceberg. It's conclusive that the 'lone shooter' narrative is false, and almost certain that a rapidly expanding explosive like PETN was involved (lapel mic). There's nothing else which fits the mutually supportive analysis work that's been done.
Re: (Score:2)
Your mindset is exactly what authoritarians want. It's basically the Putin model: get people to distrust any official concepts of truth so they will 1) be skeptical of any criticism of the authoritarian 2) be cynical enough to believe any alternative to the authoritarian will be equally as bad or worse.
Your post is riddled with these beliefs you have formed based on the speculation of your insular online communities and you don't even realize that a normal person has no idea what you're talking about. Worse
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, I just have a long horizon on my memory. "Wait a second, this contradicts what the media was just saying!" And then I look into it myself. It doesn't take speculation when there's readily available evidence to refute media claims, made by the media themselves.
The media narrative on both masking during covid, and subsequently the narrative shift over the Ukraine conflicts, are perfect examples.
Masking: masking isn't necessary; no wait, only doctors should mask; masks don't actually help; masking is good
Imagine checking for WMD and then going home (Score:2)
How about WMDs in Iraq?
That's an easy one. Saddam worked hard to manufacture the false impression that Iraq had WMD. He thought it necessary to deceive Iran to make them less likely to attack him. The problem is immediately after 9/11 the USA was in no mood to leave the WMD question unanswered. Either the UN inspectors had to go in and be unannounced and unfettered, or the US military was going to come in and do the search. How do we know this? Saddam told us so after his capture. That he no longer had WMD but he feared Iran and
Re: (Score:3)
That is ignorance of what these "comedians" actually do. Yeah in some cases they are rambling joke makers, but in others they provide well written, well researched information scattered with humour throughout, often providing a more accurate and more factual story than many "newspapers". Some lean politically, just like newspapers, some are rubbish just like newspapers.
Lumping them together by a label and declaring one label superior is a true sign of idocracy.
Re: (Score:1)
Getting your news from western newspapers, who've been maliciously lying since they denied the holodomor (and won a pulitzer for it), is the recipe that brought us the idiocy of today.
Re: Idiocracy (Score:2)
The point of your joke being what? (Score:2)
Really? You say you "respect" comedians, but only confuse the issue with your focus. Don't you understand how humor works?
My view is that you can't understand a reality-based joke unless you understand the foundation of the joke in reality. Or another formulation would be to say that not understanding the joke is a clear signal you need to do more research.
But by the success standards of today's Slashdot, that was apparently an excellent FP, spanning roughly half of the discussion. It even has a bare "insig
Mark Twain, editorial cartoon, conversation/debate (Score:2)
I respect many of those comedians for their satire, but not getting news from newspapers is a recipie for idiocracy.
It depends. If newspapers primarily deliver one party's perspective, then alternative sources that deliver the other party's perspective are useful. And why can't comedians be part of that alternative? Mark Twain, editorial cartoons, etc often used humor and help spark conversation and debate. Political parties and candidates often use humor in that way too.
Re: (Score:2)
I think, on the whole, it was better. What you printed was what you printed, and what every customer would have in their hands for as long as they preferred. In a sense, every customer was a potential archivist. It is self evident why the whole thing was not going to compete with the internet, but the thing was, even a junk paper was something you could have, clip, and refer to. Which is exactly what everyone did, all the time. The problems of the news media were and are the problems of the news media, but
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Idiocracy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Newspapers plus Scissors (Score:2)
Except that most people don't have the storage space to archive all those cubic acres of newspapers.
Except in ye old days people used these tools called scissors. For example, I have my great-grandmother's newspaper clippings from the New York Times. They are mostly from WW2 and are about the units her brothers served in or the ships they served on. There are about a dozen. They rest inside the front cover of a book from 1942.
Billionaires bought up the news (Score:5, Insightful)
So unless you just want billionaire Epstein class propaganda you've really got to go looking. There are several YouTubers I like. Belle of the ranch, Rebecca Watson, and professor Dave come to mind immediately. Patrick Boyle is pretty good too and so is Adam Something. I like some more news but I'm a pretty staunch Democrat at this point and they like to spend hours and hours crapping on Democrats for no particularly useful reason. I don't say good here because there's plenty of reasons to complain about Democrats but I don't find it useful in 2026..
But getting back on track yeah I'm not going to waste time on CBS or CNN let alone Fox News and news Max and oan because I know they're all owned by billionaires that have heavy control over what is allowed to be said and what isn't allowed to be said. So I can't get reliable information out of them.
I will sometimes settle for CNN if I have to they weren't able to go full Fox News but Lord knows they are trying.
Re: (Score:3)
If your news source is cable news, then you screwed up.
Re: (Score:1)
The BBC's own internal ethics memo damns it as an utterly bankrupt organization. Al Jazeera is state run propaganda from the country that sheltered the leader of ISIS and helped found the organization. It seems like your standards for "good news sources" live in opposite land, or basically boil down to being as anti western and corrupt as possible.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's your problem: to you, the meaning of "unbiased" is "agrees with me." That is why you are wrong. That's why you fall for motivated reasoning, because BBC executives resigned when unethical bias was discovered, but you won't fix y
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, I think you are insipid for lying in this way. Worse, you won't change, you won't learn to use logic.
I hope you never use a Gish Gallop again.
I hope chat GTP did that for you (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The AP and Reuters aren't a "source of truth", their own reporters have blown the whistle on their malicious lying [x.com] and propagandizing.
Epstein class
Just say "jews", we all know that's what you mean.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a major part of how the Left's current incarnation of Newspeak has been created and imposed upon the public. Through the style guide, journalists have been forced to portray the news in terms that promote the conclusions of
Sadly (Score:5, Informative)
Comedians are, in fact, a more credible source of news than TV news or newspapers. They generally pay more attention to what's actually happening in the world.
Re:Sadly (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
BBC "vanilla"? Really? Vanilla leftist propaganda [wikipedia.org], maybe, nearly from the day they began. And keep in mind, they've admitted to it.
Re: (Score:3)
BBC "vanilla"? Really? Vanilla leftist propaganda [wikipedia.org], maybe, nearly from the day they began. And keep in mind, they've admitted to it.
When you yourself are extreme right, then everything looks like leftist propaganda, even a service like the BBC which is rated just right of centre: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... [mediabiasfactcheck.com] Maybe concern yourself with yourself more than the BBC.
Re: (Score:1)
When you yourself are extreme left then everyone else looks like they're extreme right. The BBC's own internal ethical review [spectator.com] was utterly damning and shows that they're institutionally bankrupt and corrupt to the very highest levels.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
This website is one of the greatest scams online. They squatted on an emotionally manipulative URL years ago and then proceeded to simply declare whatever the owner wanted to be true regardless of the actual facts. Meanwhile because of the name of the website everyone treats it
Re: (Score:2)
You're conflating political leanings with corruption and accuracy of reporting. There's more than one axis here. Also I'm not left, I'm right, but a centralist rather than whatever brand of extremism is causing you to label the BBC as "left propaganda".
Please bring some more intelligence to your assessment of the media.
This website is one of the greatest scams online.
Everything looks like a scam when it disagrees with your world view, especially when your world view requires reporting originally sourced tabloids like the Telegraph to support your view.
Ple
Re: (Score:2)
What does centrism even mean? Splitting your opinions right down the middle? If that's the case, you should agree with Trump half the time. Do you? Since 2008, the GOP moved 2% farther right and Democrats moved 31% farther left. How does that impact the center? Logically, it should mean
Re:Sadly (Score:4, Interesting)
When the BBC reports on British news, they are biased. (But compared to comedians they are extremely good).
Re: (Score:2)
BBC tends to be unbaised when they report on American news because they don't care about D and R.
I don't re recall them ever editing any speeches by Democrats to make it look like they were inciting riots when, in fact, they were doing the exact opposite.
They've admitted their bias. Hallucinate all you want, there's no question whatsoever about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't re recall
You can just leave it there, because compared to you, the BBC is a beacon of objectivity. You are biased.
Re: (Score:2)
BBC tends to be unbaised when they report on American news because they don't care about D and R.
When the BBC reports on British news, they are biased. (But compared to comedians they are extremely good).
Erm... just exactly which side is the BBC biased against?
The right will tell you the BBC has a leftist bias whist the left will tell you the BBC is biased towards the right.
They can't both be correct.
Re: Sadly (Score:3)
Re: Sadly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BBC "vanilla"? Really? Vanilla leftist propaganda, maybe, nearly from the day they began.
If they're such a source of leftist propaganda, then how come they massively over represent right wing views?
https://theconversation.com/bb... [theconversation.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The transphobic network that keeps platforming Actual Fascists like Nige and pretty much never puts on anyone to the left of the Labour Party? Really? That BBC? Did you have a stroke?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sadly (Score:2)
Comedians get their news from TV news and newspapers. The Friar's Club does not have bureaus in London, New York, and Hong Kong. They are not bringing the world unbiased original reporting.
Re: (Score:3)
Comedians are, in fact, a more credible source of news than TV news or newspapers. They generally pay more attention to what's actually happening in the world.
Makes sense to an extent. The best comedians use observational humor, and will make you laugh and think.
That said, comedians are merely another group that isn’t sponsored to warp Truth for Profit. Anyone could deliver factual news reporting if they wanted to AND if the audience actually gave a shit about being informed with facts.
The latter is the real problem, and sums up why MENSA isn’t delivering the news. They gave up on humanity long ago. Now we need a humor specialist just to deliver
Re: (Score:2)
"JR led the list..." (Score:1)
Not New (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet their humorous take on the news was very much appreciated. I count myself among those who once considered themselves well informed, and I was a regularly Daily Show viewer. I also loved the various Canadian comedies over the years such as Double Exposure, Royal Canadian Air Farce, etc. And I still listen to BBC's the News Quiz when it is available. And Dead Ringers.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is a parrot (Score:3, Informative)
CNN, famous for their reporting in the '80s and '90s is a White House parrot like most US broadcast news. To me, MSNBC does the least parroting and offers better historical summaries.
Seeing the same second-hand copy appear in The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Verge, Pro Publica and Mother Jones is exhausting. It shows the competition for clicks and the lack of on-the-scene reporting.
I saw a trump talking about a bill (Score:2)
I don't think Trump is parroting Fox news, because I don't think his brain works enough anymore for him to do that. Maybe 8 years ago during his first presidency but right now his brain is just gone.
Just recently he went on a rant about how terrible the country was a year ago without realizing he was President a year ago.
The guy has absolutely lost his marbles and if Congress w
Questionable survey (Score:4, Interesting)
The survey never directly says what people and demographics were surveyed, but the results strongly indicate that the demographics were nowhere near representative of the nation. Since the sponsoring center is located in Mississippi, perhaps the survey targeted people in Mississippi. That would help to explain why the top influencers are exclusively Republican and right-wing.
A further clue is the chart [newslab.org] showing breakdowns by 2024 presidential vote cast. That chart shows a suspiciously huge number of voters for voted for someone other than Trump or Harris.
The 6th estate? (Score:2, Troll)
Dog help us if random YouTubers are taking over for traditional news media.
On the other hand, what used to be a fairly solid traditional journalistic foundation - those of you old enough to remember Cronkite know what I'm talking about - long ago started giving way to sensationalism. With the advent of Faux News, what used to be serious journalism devolved into the pre-internet equivalent of clickbait. The sad end of 60 Minutes' credibility at the hands of genocide-supporting Bari Weiss sealed the deal: rel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The irony of someone ranting about "genocide supporting Bari Weiss" is palpable. If you want to see what genocide support looks like go read the BBC, Associated Press, Al Jazeera, or the New York Times. Bonus points for the NYT as well since they still proudly list a pulitzer prize they won for genocide denial during the holodomor.
AFAIC, these days the Leftists are far more reliable and objective than any Right-favouring sources I've found.
Agreeing with your prejudices is not the same as "reliable and objective".
Re: (Score:2)
It is normal to regard sources that share your bias as being the more objective and reliable.
Nothing to see here, move along (Score:1)
Re: Nothing to see here, move along (Score:1)
None of it is accurate unless the writer's job/life/whatever depends on it. And even then accuracy comes in shades at best.
I've seen fundamental errors of fact slip into legal proceedings. They weren't material to the argument, just context, in the instance I saw. And it wasnâ(TM)t worth anyone's time to try to get it fixed. But it was probably the only official record of that backgrounf context that was ever going to be made. And it was factually wrong.
Reality is either experienced directly or read ab
NPR is still going (Score:1)
Re: NPR is still going (Score:1)
It's pbs, not npr. I blame millionaires and billionaires for swapping those letters around right under your nose.
I think I took this poll (Score:2)
...or possibly just one like it. It excluded concepts such as news aggregators. I get my news online, and most of it comes from established media, but I'm not following any particular site. I go through news aggregators such as Google News, and I can count on the hot stuff to be repeated on Reddit ad nauseum.
Whether aggregators were deliberately excluded from the poll is unclear. They could just be clueless.
Yep (Score:2)
This is how my mother consumes âoenewsâ now.
She told me everything is just so negative these daysâ¦
Ya think? I wonder why?
Voted republican her whole life.
Re: (Score:2)
Set the wayback to 1976 (Score:2)
Newspapers Vs Comedians, a historical perspective (Score:2)
After newspapers fell into the hands of large corporations, their greed made them go after the mass market. To make their products more appealing to the masses, they turned news reporting into comedy. Over the years they created and groomed this new segment of customers, who have come to expect a good dose of serious sounding humor along with their morning cup of coffee.
All was hunky dory until comedians took notice of this very large market that was being delivered a big pile of dull humor every day, to th
More Americans get their news from the Daily Show (Score:2)
And government (Score:2)
They also run the government in the US and Ukraine.
Great comedians see around the blind spot . . . (Score:2)
. . . which is key to their success. They see all sides. Namely, they understand that progressives, just like conservatives, fully recognize their take is biased to one side on individual topics - yet unlike conservatives, they fail to see when their bias is systematically skewed. This is particularly notable in a variety of ways:
- Progressives rightly see Fox as right leaning, as do conservatives, but assessing NPR reveals a schism: conservatives see NPR as distinctly left leaning while progressives see it
I guess I'm the odd one out (Score:2)
I tend to get most of my news by reading it online. The primary websites I use are BBC, Yahoo! and Slashdot. BBC is by far the best source I've found that seems to just tell you what's happening without trying to tell you have to feel about it.
Some of Yahoo!'s articles are decent as well, but there is a lot of slop there. AP and NPR seem to have half way decent reporting. Outside of those places, I try to avoid CNN, Fox, MSN, Newsmax (wtf is this shit...). The idea of using tiktok or just watching comedians
And where do these entertainers get it? (Score:2)
They are not doing any journalism themselves.
They are just polishing up what they in turn see on YT, TV, newspapers, etc.
Eradication of the Fifth Estate (Score:2)
A necessary step in establishing any successful autocracy - looks like it's going very well in the U.S.of A.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that journalism and the media as industries are already overwhelmingly dominated by people of one particular political persuasion.
"More truth is told in jest than in earnest" (Score:2)
Shakespeare, I think.
Re: (Score:2)