Misinformation drove these people to vote for Trump. This is going be leopard eating their faces. Sad and shows just how much fake videos and misinformation can influence our elections.
“I didn’t do anything beyond confirm my own biases. Why are things this terrible all of a sudden? I didn’t want this!”
Average American political literacy.
Fucking morons bouta get rekt.
If only there was some warning that disinformation was going to play a role in the election.
If everyone watched MeidasTouch for the political/legal news, America would be far saner and harder to dupe. Its the only media outlet I have any respect or hope for
Trump’s election seems/feels like reoccurring issue with short term memory, long term planning, critical thinking, and reading deficiencies amoung the American population.
Trump’s election seems/feels like reoccurring issue with short term memory,
This is actually about all we have. If it happened more than 5 minutes ago, it didn’t happen.
long term planning,
Dems tend not to see more than about 5 minutes ahead, either.
critical thinking,
Nonexistent in the modern age. People have long since spoken and have said they prefer online echo chambers where critical thinking is actively discouraged.
and reading deficiencies amoung the American population.
When do you think the last time your average American voter read a book? Or for that matter consumed a piece of news media that wasn’t a social media clickbait video from their echo chamber of choice?
If everyone watched MeidasTouch for the political/legal news, America would be far saner and harder to dupe. Its the only media outlet I have any respect or hope for
I’m going to be honest, I watch a lot of very left-leaning independent media. MeidasTouch, BTC, David Pakman, Jesse Dollemore. I subscribe to BTC. But I’ve got a lot of issues with them, including MeidasTouch, myself.
-
They all use extreme and misleading hyperbole and clickbait in their titles and thumbnails that have a strained-at-best relationship with objective facts and the subject at hand. Saying that Jack Smith is winding down his cases against Trump is not “BIG news on FEDERAL PROSECUTION of TRUMP before inauguration!!!”, for example. BTC is particularly noteworthy for this.
-
They all focus their coverage almost entirely on Trump, to the point where it’s not unreasonable to question what these people would do if Trump really were to just ride off into the sunset, and cover him in such a way where they are clearly profiting off of the outrage.
-
None of them promote new Democrat ideas or give coverage to Democrat politicians unless they are going on the air to speak against Trump. Little to no time is dedicated to left-leaning topics that aren’t somehow heavily tied to Trump and keeping Trump outrage high.
-
With the exception of BTC, they all hock products that nobody has ever heard of, they have never heard of, and by the way they read the script, couldn’t care less about beyond the check they get from the sponsor. David Pakman is particularly egregious with his claims about how long he’s been using the product and is a fan of it, which you can tell is 100% grade-A bullshit by the way he reads the script.
Don’t get me wrong. At the end of the day, they are still at least giving factual and accurate information even if it’s clouded in hyperbole and clickbait, which is infinitely far more than I can say for Fox, Newsmax, Twitter, Trump Social, or OANN. The products they’re hocking are at least actual products and won’t actively harm consumers, unlike the crypto scams, ads for ivermectin, and whatever other money laundering schemes RAN is peddling this week.
But at the same time, they are all profiting heavily off of making sure outrage against Trump stays high. They all shy away from covering anything that could be construed as beneficial to Trump out of fear of losing subscribers. They all, with the exception of BTC, lie to their subscribers by claiming they use a product they clearly care nothing about. They all skew their coverage with an extreme left bent. They are far better than what we get from the right, but they are by no means objective, are not above and beyond skewing coverage in a way that they feel is most profitable for them, and would absolutely sell out to the very mainstream media they claim to despise if given the chance.
You should give the Humanist Report a shot. Mike is extremely measured and doesn’t do advertisements apart from a book he wrote and that’s just in the background. I find his takes more reasonable than anyone else on the left, although I watch a lot of different sources. At least worth mixing it in.
Will do 😘
Respectfully, they found a niche and they rolled with it. I do mildly criticize the hyperbole but I accept its something that helps get clicks which id rather they get than basically all the alternatives.
The products are whatever, sometimes I’m glad to hear about whats big and they tend to take on decent quality offerings that I may act on at some point, most of the podcasts and outlets I follow have to do some form of advertising but they all make it fun or minimally intrusive so again I accept that as a function of doing business and being able to continue their work.
I’m sure we couldn’t disagree that the legal analysis and breakdowns are top-notch and quite deep. They’ve made me, a non-lawyer or law student utterly fascinated with the law and how it can all go wrong and where it upholds what it should where it matters
Edit: thanks for a new channel to explore (Jesse Dollemore), dont think I’ve seen them before if they are unaffilaited with any of the others you mentioned but i will check them out 😘
Respectfully, they found a niche and they rolled with it. I do mildly criticize the hyperbole but I accept its something that helps get clicks which id rather they get than basically all the alternatives.
This is true to some degree. But at the same time, these are all still a bunch of white guys who happened to be born into the wealth needed to create their channels in the first place, so it’s more of which group of rich white dudes is getting the clicks.
And if that’s the way they want to roll, it’s really none of my business nor concern. Go with it. But just don’t claim that you’re objective and independent when watching about three minutes of your coverage proves otherwise.
The products are whatever, sometimes I’m glad to hear about whats big and they tend to take on decent quality offerings that I may act on at some point, most of the podcasts and outlets I follow have to do some form of advertising but they all make it fun or minimally intrusive so again I accept that as a function of doing business and being able to continue their work.
I have no problems with advertising. They have to make money too. But there’s a difference between “Here’s a word from our sponsor” and letting the ad run vs. claiming to like and use a product they’ve clearly never heard of while they’re reading off a script with all of the acting talent of a first grader in a school play. And to some, it begs the question of if they’re willing to peddle this crap and lie to me about it in the process, what else are they lying about to generate revenue?
I’m sure we couldn’t disagree that the legal analysis and breakdowns are top-notch and quite deep. They’ve made me, a non-lawyer or law student utterly fascinated with the law and how it can all go wrong and where it upholds what it should where it matters
Oh, this I agree with. Once you dig through the clickbait and hyperbole, the information is quite good. But you’ve got to dig through more than you should have to to get there.
-
