These are, in my opinion, paranoid and unhelpful stances to take. How is this vehement anti-mainstream-news stance different from the Trump supporting truth-deniers who refuse to believe the mainstream media? How is it different than the people who refuse to believe the mainstream media and wind up believing in all kinds of nutjob things (like I write about in this article:

The media does get things wrong sometimes, obviously (especially when they receive wrong info from the government, as happened with the Iraq WMDs) but by and large they do quite a good job. I think the main problem is people expect too much of them; they are businesses, above all, and we shouldn’t just accept everything we read blindly. To act as if all mainstream media outlets are working together as part of some huge conspiracy is naive. Any story worth covering will, because there is so much competition amongst the press and everyone wants to get attention for discovering a good story, find an outlet. The thing conspiracy theorists forget, or stubbornly overlook, is that large conspiracies are very hard to pull off and continue. Lies involving a lot of people are quickly discovered; all it takes is one person to snitch, and people love to snitch.

As to the Joe Scarborough thing; it’s a trivial observation, but you point to it like it’s some sort of sign of things gone extremely wrong. Of course a well-known media personality will be more influential and powerful than one of a bunch of congressman. It’s not surprising, because congressman’s power only comes when they get a lot of other people on the same page, whereas a media personality can obviously have large influence single-handedly (assuming they’re lucky enough to become famous, which is not easy obviously). This is a trivial point, and was true 50 years ago, too.

I think you are doing a disservice to the country in sewing such distrust of the mainstream media. It seems like the one thing your article lacks is: how to know you are correct and the mainstream media is wrong. For most people, that will be very hard to know. We are, most of us, very ignorant about what the reality of complex, international situations are. How much research, and how much knowledge, would one civilian have to amass before they were confident they’d gotten enough information to be confident that a mainstream media piece is incorrect? I hardly reach that level of certainty, because I know that I seldom have all the information. But you act as if that’s a trivial state of mind to reach, and that people will be reaching it often.

Long story short; you sound way too certain and paranoid in your beliefs that the mainstream media is a) often wrong, and b) involved in a vast conspiracy.

Have psych podcast “People Who Read People.” My research into online deception featured in NYT, WaPo, more. Wrote books on poker tells (translated 8 languages).