Modern WisdomWhy Does Mainstream Media Suck So Much? - Dave Smith
CHAPTERS
Corporate media as state propaganda—and why 2024 exposed the rot
Dave argues that corporate media in the US and much of the West functions as de facto state propaganda, primarily protecting powerful interests and shaping narratives for the public. What’s different in 2024, he says, is not that they lie, but how clumsily and blatantly they do it in an era where audiences can instantly check the raw footage online.
- •Corporate/legacy media framed as “state propaganda” with aligned incentives
- •Historical continuity: parallels to Vietnam-era media narratives
- •2024 shift: propaganda is ‘dumber’ and less adaptable to the internet era
- •Example: viral clips vs low TV viewership makes narrative-spinning easier to debunk
- •Legacy outlets conceding they’re no longer the true ‘mainstream’
Independent media lapping the networks: why audiences moved
Chris and Dave discuss how mainstream outlets now chase relevance by commenting on independent creators. Dave responds that long-form, open conversation is simply producing more thoughtful analysis than legacy formats, and that the audience shift is a rational response to quality and authenticity.
- •Mainstream media gets attention by reacting to independent media
- •Long-form shows framed as more intelligent and interesting than cable panels
- •Value in reading/listening across ideologies (e.g., Chomsky) vs partisan scripts
- •Examples of higher-quality discussions outside legacy media
- •Audience migration as an earned consequence of legacy failure
Sam Harris calling Dave out—and the ‘comedian as analyst’ critique
Dave recounts Sam Harris criticizing platforms like Rogan for hosting a comedian to discuss geopolitics. Dave grants the critique feels reasonable in principle, but argues it dodges the deeper issue: legacy institutions repeatedly failed, creating a vacuum that independent media filled.
- •Sam Harris critique: credibility and expertise in independent media commentary
- •Dave partially agrees: it’s odd we lack trusted institutions
- •Counterpoint: independent shows outperform legacy media in substance
- •The vacuum exists because institutions squandered their head start and resources
- •Authenticity and belief-driven speech vs party-line performance
When establishment failure breeds extremism (and why ‘provide an alternative’ matters)
The conversation broadens to how institutional failure fuels both far-left and populist-right movements. Dave uses the masculinity/role-model analogy: people may reject certain figures, but without credible alternatives the vacuum will be filled by whoever speaks to unmet needs.
- •Analogy to masculinity discourse: criticizing figures without offering substitutes
- •Institutional messaging portrayed as hostile to masculinity; vacuum effect
- •Radical movements gain traction when establishment governance fails
- •Young-left socialism as ‘opposite of current system’; right-populism as anti-corruption
- •Trump’s ‘drain the swamp’ as an emotionally unifying anti-establishment signal
Can legacy media regain trust? Postmortems, denial, and the ‘new game’ of long-form
Chris asks whether the media will learn; Dave predicts it won’t, citing incentives against honesty. They discuss how long-form, unedited interviews have become a new expectation for national politics—and why certain politicians and narratives struggle in that format.
- •Low trust in corporate media; skepticism that real reform is possible
- •Postmortems split: ‘sexism/racism’ explanations vs limited partial concessions
- •Pattern claim: media ‘gets it wrong’ consistently on the side of power/security state
- •Kamala skipping Rogan framed as strategically wise given long-form demands
- •Long-form, unedited interviews becoming an emerging political requirement
Independent media’s breakthrough moments: Rogan, COVID narratives, and debates moving platforms
Chris lists key inflection points where independent media collided with mainstream narratives (ivermectin, lab leak, vaccines). They then explore a future where presidential debates could plausibly be hosted by independent figures due to audience size and credibility.
- •Breakthrough clashes: ‘horse dewormer’ framing, lab leak, vaccine skepticism
- •Election attention amplifying independent-media legitimacy
- •Speculation: debates hosted by independent media rather than networks
- •Audience size as the deciding factor vs traditional institutional status
- •Legacy media’s earlier dismissal of podcasts/social platforms as ‘not real life’
“Should we salvage mainstream media?” Dave’s ‘too far gone’ argument
Chris floats the idea of reforming legacy media; Dave argues some institutions cross a corruption threshold that forfeits legitimacy. He grounds this in the media’s role in selling wars and repeating official narratives, claiming the proper solution is abolition rather than repair.
- •Reform vs replacement: institutions can lose the ‘right to exist’
- •Soviet Union analogy: past a point, ‘pointing it the right way’ isn’t viable
- •War propaganda as the central indictment: repeated conflicts sold via deception
- •Wesley Clark reference: pre-planned regime-change list and shifting public justifications
- •Conclusion: legitimacy is irrecoverable; institutions should be dismantled
Boomer media tactics in an internet world: misframing, bad fact-checks, and losing anyway
Chris cites examples of selective framing and misleading narratives (headlines, fact checks, talk-show claims), concluding legacy media feels out of touch or complicit. Dave argues they’re stuck in old habits from an era when they controlled information—and haven’t adapted to being easily checked and out-audienced.
- •Examples: headline framing around crime/immigration; ‘fact-check’ contortions; caricatures
- •Two explanations: ignorance vs complicity/cowardice/coordination
- •Legacy media acting like it still has an information monopoly
- •Audience disparity makes smears backfire when targets can respond to larger audiences
- •Old playbook failing because viewers can instantly verify source material
Why journalists are leaving X for Bluesky: censorship, echo chambers, and the marketplace of ideas
They turn to “X-it” and Bluesky, debating whether fragmentation worsens echo chambers. Dave argues many activists/journalists relied on platform control and censorship; when that control weakened under Musk, some chose to exit rather than compete in open debate.
- •Elon-era X framed as less controlled; some users leave when censorship leverage fades
- •Concern about siloing: fragmentation amplifies myopia and misunderstanding
- •Dave’s claim: critics of COVID policies wanted debate; establishment side preferred suppression
- •Standard-setting analogy: participation requires non-censorship and good-faith engagement
- •Skepticism that moving platforms changes who commands attention and audiences
The ‘iceberg problem’: cancellation narratives fail when audiences know the whole person
Chris describes the legacy-media tactic of turning isolated errors into proof of an entire ‘hidden’ ideology. They argue this collapses against long-form creators like Rogan because audiences have consumed hundreds of hours and can contextualize mistakes, making character-assassination less effective.
- •Smear sequence: no ‘misspeaking,’ then ‘tip of the iceberg,’ then total ideological indictment
- •Long-form exposure builds robust audience context and parasocial familiarity
- •Authenticity: audiences feel they ‘know’ creators; harder to insert gatekeepers
- •Perverse incentives of outrage-driven curation vs frictionless publishing
- •Result: legacy cancellation attempts increasingly bounce off
Against political correctness: why societies need provocative, imperfect thinkers
Dave argues that strict taboo systems discourage intellectual exploration and punish error, which impoverishes discourse. He claims the most valuable thinkers can be wrong/offensive on some points yet insightful on others—and these nonconformists are also crucial when resisting rising authoritarianism.
- •Taboo ‘third rails’ discourage curiosity and honest discussion
- •Great thinkers often mix wrong/offensive takes with genuine insight
- •Resentment toward forced self-censorship and reputational blackmail
- •Nonconformists as vital dissenters during authoritarian drift
- •Conspiracies/heterodox interests framed as part of what makes discourse lively
Libertarianism vs the Libertarian Party: strategy, constraints, and influence
Asked about the Libertarian Party’s place, Dave distinguishes between libertarianism as a worldview and third-party politics as a structurally disadvantaged game. He praises the party chair’s approach in extracting commitments from Trump, while emphasizing liberty as the core solution to systemic problems.
- •Libertarianism framed as the central struggle: tyranny vs liberty
- •Third-party politics ‘rigged’ against outsiders in the US system
- •Angela McArdle praised for repositioning the party and seeking assurances
- •Libertarians’ contribution: diagnosing corruption as a function of government scale
- •Influence more plausible via leverage and ideas than electoral takeover
Cutting government as anti-corruption: ‘drain the swamp’ and the DOGE-style mindset
Dave argues Washington corruption is inseparable from the size and coercive funding of government. He claims meaningful reform requires drastic spending cuts and institutional rollback; he also sees cultural value in high-profile efforts that normalize auditing and eliminating bureaucratic waste.
- •Corruption defined as predictable when government spends/trades favors at massive scale
- •Taxation/printing/borrowing framed as coercive extraction and deferred taxation
- •DC-area wealth concentration cited as symptom of cronyism
- •‘Drain the swamp’ translated into concrete action: cuts, audits, reductions
- •Interest in DOGE-style efforts as consciousness-raising even if informal
Pressure on Republicans: governing is harder than criticizing (and the swamp fights back)
Chris notes the right now has to deliver results rather than merely oppose; Dave agrees and warns entrenched interests will resist reforms. They discuss how policy implementation triggers media/activist backlash and how Trump’s first term faltered due to lack of preparation and coordinated counterattacks like Russiagate.
- •Shift from ‘rebellion’ to responsibility: deliver change while in power
- •Entrenched interests resist reforms; implementation invites coordinated pushback
- •Deportation promise used as example: real-world friction, media amplification of failures
- •Trump 2016 détente idea undercut by ‘Russian spy’ framing; governance constrained by narratives
- •First-term failure attributed to underestimating how deep the system runs
Trump’s second-term opportunity—and where to find Dave
Dave argues Trump is better positioned now than in 2016: larger victory, popular vote, institutional control, and reduced street-level resistance. They close with Dave’s call to capitalize on the moment to pursue reforms, followed by his plugs for his podcast and social accounts.
- •Second-term context: Trump ‘burned’ by the system and more prepared
- •Claimed cultural shift: less protest energy, different activist focus
- •Institutional advantages: Congress, Supreme Court, popular vote momentum
- •Bottom line: if reforms can’t happen now, it’s a major missed opportunity
- •Dave’s links: partoftheproblem.com and @comicdavesmith
