We’ve all been there. You’re at Sunday dinner, and “Uncle Racist” starts off about how the “liberal media” is destroying the country. It’s a classic script. However, if you pull back the curtain, you see the gears and pulleys of the American information machine. You realize the “liberal” part is a ghost. A phantom boogieman designed to protect the one thing billionaire owners actually care about: their wallets.
The Billionaire Firewall
We’re told the media is left-leaning because they attempt to report an accurate view of the world. They don’t actively campaign against people having rights, deny basic science findings or other things that go against preconceived ideas. But since when did basic observation of reality become “liberal media”?
In reality, the mainstream commercial media is a structural anomaly designed to protect the status quo. Look at the roster: The Washington Post, The Atlantic, Time. They’re owned by the ultra-wealthy. These wealthy elites might be “socially liberal” at a cocktail party. Even supporting things like equality or a rudimentary belief in climate change. That support is purely topical however. By no means are they going to bankroll a newsroom that champions progressive tax policies. Tax policies that would drain their own wallets. The moment a progressive economic agenda threatens the owner’s real financial status, the mask that is “liberal” slips. We saw this exact capitulation start in early 2025; business interests always pull the leash.
This facade doesn’t stop at the billionaire owners. Individual corporations that seem liberal friendly won’t advertise on news programs that go against their bottom line. They’re not going pay for ad space on a network that actively supports raising taxes on its own operations. Would they support raising taxes on their shareholders or the economic systems that drive their business? Even so called Liberal media networks fail to actually highlight truly progressive policy. These policies would provide the funding necessary for the radical programs 21st century America requires. At the end of the day, General Electrics connections to NBC/Comcast offer a greater financial incentive. This outweighs any opinion Rachel Maddow espouses.
In 1983, 50 companies owned 90% of US media; today, that number has shrunk to just 6 conglomerates. Do you think they have your best interests in mind? Do you think on a political spectrum that a centuries old multinational corporate media giant is producing liberal media? Think again. Its significantly more beneficial to keep viewers rallying against an imaginary liberal media than allow criticism of the owners finances.
The Death of the Process
The real tragedy isn’t just the bias; it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what news is.
News is supposed to be a critique of events in the least bias way possible. A documentation of reality using the scientific method. It’s supposed to be detailed, evidenced-based, and most importantly, subject to change when new facts emerge. But for a sizable portion of the population, that process is the enemy.
They don’t want a process; they want a Gospel. They want a narrative that is dictated, authoritative, and unchanged for millennia. Something counter intuitive to reality.
When a journalist revises a story because new evidence came to light, these “Gospel” seekers don’t see journalistic diligence. They see a lie. They associate revision with indecisiveness. A concept that they associate to falsehood or manipulation. They’ve replaced the legitimate, peer-reviewed authority of evidence with an identity-based authority that promises them absolute, simple truths. It’s a rejection of science applied to the daily record of our lives.
It doesn’t even have to be a revision that triggers this reaction. When journalists provide necessary context, complexity, or nuance to a news story the “liberal spin” flags emerge. For an audience that demands a simple narrative adding context or details is seen as manipulation. It’s an attempt to confuse or obscure the simple, more “obvious” truth.
The Biological Hypocrisy
You don’t need a PhD or ardent devotion to the scientific method. It’s easy to see the glaring flaw in trying to engineer life—or truth—into a stable constant. The universe isn’t a museum; it’s an ever changing process.
Every morning you wake up, you are living proof that “fixed constants” are a fairy tale. Your body is a masterpiece of change: you age, you heal, you wear out, and eventually, you exit. If the universe were a rigid, unchanging block, you’d still be a toddler. The dogmatic crowd wants the news to be this way; permanently infantile.
The “Youthful Body” Fallacy
There is massive irony here. People get angry when scientists or journalists uncover new facts often changing long-held perspectives. They scream “flip-flop!” or “deception!” because the “truth” changed. But those same people can’t look in the mirror and see a twenty-year-old anymore.
You can’t demand that information stay youthful and unchanged when your own body doesn’t. Your own cells are busy rewriting your biography every single day. Every day of your existence you’re literally a different person than before. If you accept that your joints now ache because time and physics exist, then the same can apply to facts. “Facts” are simply the best data available right now. They are subject to the same laws of growth, decay, and evolution as your own skin. To reject a change in perspective is to reject the very mechanism that allows you to exist.
Empty News Calories
Why did that viral video of Sinclair Media affiliates fail to wake people up? Dozens of different anchors read the exact same “fake news” script on dozens of channels. Because corporations have figured out that the public is addicted to easily digestible empty news calories.
They saturate the airwaves with fluff and partisan drama because it’s cheap and it drives engagement. It’s psychological comfort food. They utilize the same reality tv hooks and gimmicks that keep you watching. By using local anchors—the people you trust, often your entire lives to tell you the weather—to deliver corporate-mandated propaganda. They’re exploiting your sense of community and nostalgia to protect their bottom line.
The Lake Michigan Whale Grift
This rejection of reality is exactly what my college geography teacher was testing when he handed us a brochure on whale watching in Lake Michigan. We were supposed to write a follow-up on these “freshwater whale tours.”
The point, of course, was that there are no whales in the Great Lakes. Whales are saltwater mammals; their biology literally forbids them from existing there. But because the paper looked professional—because it was “Authority”—half the class was ready to book a ticket.
It’s the ultimate “empty calorie” news. It feels exciting. It looks official. More importantly it bypasses your BS detector because you’ve been trained to accept Authority over Observation. If the source says there are whales in the lake, you start to question your own knowledge of biology. You assume that your understanding must be the problem.
The original publication of the whale watching article was 1985. Even today, people still walk into Traverse City tourism offices asking where the whale boats are. The importance of this exercise in critical thought has only grown exponentially since the advent of social media and A.I.
Projecting the Insecurity
At its core, this isn’t just a “group-think” problem; it’s a psychological one. Some minds simply cannot process the ambiguity of existence. They have a neurological necessity for “cognitive closure”—the need for a definitive unchanging answer right now.
They project their own insecurities onto reality of their own making. They can’t handle a world that is messy and complex. As a result, if anyone points out the actual complexity reality they must be a rejected as a “liberal”. An agent of chaos laid before them to disrupt the fragile makeup of their artificial reality. Likely they” tell you this person was sent by the devil. A concept easier for them to accept than that of being surrounded by objective truths. It’s a defense mechanism against the overwhelming anxiety of a world that doesn’t fit into a black-and-white box. A cognitive filter they rely upon to function in a world of infinite’s.
They’ve replaced the legitimate, peer-reviewed authority of evidence with an identity-based authority that promises them absolute, simple truths. They want the magic of the Gospel so badly they’ll ignore the fact that the water isn’t salty.
“They’re so thirsty for it they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s no water, they’ll drink the sand,” – Lewis Rothschild (Michael J. Fox) The American President (1995).
The Funding Bias: A Sign of Grift
The ‘grift’ operates on a spectrum. Moving from standard business practices to clear exploitation. It is a major factor in how content is selected, framed, and delivered.
1. Paywalls and Fundraising Campaigns
While asking for financial support is a legitimate strategy for non-corporate media, the nature of the request reveals a lot.
| Monetization Model | What it Implies | Risk to Journalistic Integrity |
| Subscription/Paywall | The content’s value is placed on the reader. This model can encourage publications to prioritize content appealing to a core, paying audience (e.g., highly partisan news or soft news) at the expense of local, broad public interest journalism that doesn’t sell as well. | Bias by Audience Appeal: Content decisions are driven by subscriber retention, not necessarily civic need. |
| Urgent Fundraising/Begging | Common among non-profit or alternative outlets. Can be ethical, but becomes problematic when the appeals are based on a constant manufactured crisis or fear (e.g., “They’re trying to shut us down!” or “Donate $25 to defeat the latest boogeyman”). | Bias by Outrage: The narrative must be maintained to generate donations. Leading to exaggerated or sensationalized reporting to keep the audience in a state of crisis. |
| “Buy My Book/Merch” | Standard among personalities, but signals that the primary goal is personal brand building and profit, not just reporting. The content becomes a funnel for selling goods. | Commercial Bias: The focus is on the personal celebrity of the host/pundit. This can override journalistic standards if the content must serve the sales funnel. |
The Selling of Goods: Supplements, MLMs, and Scams
The clearest sign of “outright grift” that shifts a media outlet from being merely biased into the realm of fringe or conspiracy is the nature of the products it endorses or sells.
When an outlet sells or promotes goods that require the audience to maintain a state of fear, paranoia, or distrust to justify the purchase, it indicates a severe conflict of interest:
| Grift Type | Products and Services | How it Corrupts the Message |
| Self-Branded Supplements | “Proprietary” vitamins, “brain boosters,” or “immune support” products often marketed with health claims that are either unsupported or outright false. | The news segment’s purpose shifts from informing to creating a health-related fear (e.g., about toxins, viruses, or government control) that only their product can solve. |
| MLM Sponsorships | Multi-Level Marketing companies that sell health, beauty, or financial products. | The outlet is financially tied to the success of an organization frequently scrutinized by regulators (FTC) for deceptive earnings claims. The outlet’s credibility is used to recruit listeners into a potentially exploitative business model. |
| Preparedness/Survival Goods | Emergency food buckets, gold investments, non-perishable supplies, water filters. | The content is designed to promote a state of extreme doom and collapse. Economic, social, or political which is then solved by the advertiser’s product. The reporting must be catastrophic to generate sales. |
In summary, when you see a news channel or personality spending on-air time fear-mongering about a societal threat. Immediately pivot to selling a self-branded supplement or survival item it’s no longer news. You are witnessing the point where bias has become a business model. Where the pursuit of profit has entirely replaced the pursuit of truth and journalistic integrity.
Breaking the Spell
So, how do we deal with it? You can’t fight a psychological firewall with a “fist-first” approach. In authoritarian regimes like Russia or China, people are information-starved; they want the truth. But in the U.S., people are information-satiated; they are full of the “flavor-aid” of identity.
To free them, we have to stop attacking the belief and start attacking the grift. Don’t tell them they’re wrong; show them how they’re being exploited. When you mention that their favorite pundit is pushing ‘end-of-the-world’ narratives, you help them see the pivot. This pivot leads to a sales pitch for survival supplements or gold coins. You create a graceful exit ramp for them.
Maybe attacking the grift directly is what needs to be done. Maybe its a linguistics trap. People writing about grift know what it means and its context in economics. If you google it however, many more direct synonyms come up. Words that almost everyone among us can understand:
| fraud | scam |
|---|---|
| racket | sting |
| deceit | cheating |
| extortion | trickery |
| fix | stealing |
Maybe its time we start using the correct language for specific conversations. Maybe those among us that want a simple truth would be more accepting of a simple word. You might not know when you’re being grifted but everyone knows when they’re being scammed. If you can convince them someone is scamming them via their narratives you don’t have to attack the narrative. After all the goal isn’t to win an argument. It’s to decouple their self-worth from the corporate propaganda they’ve been fed. It’s slow, it’s frustrating, and it’s depressing—but it’s the only way to get back to a shared reality.
