i agree with this take. i know a lot of otherwise successful and clever people who see corporate media coverage of live ongoing events and tacitly accept the initial framing. not everyone looks at the messaging of our institutions in a default state of hypervigilance. i understand it. people want to trust institutions. it is exhausting to internalize how absolutely decayed and full of shit the US' are. if you type a few words into the big corporate search engine the top hits are all to the giant media outlets, and they are lock step on program. or, worse, just turn on the noisy live broadcast box, the people in nice clothes / speaking in even tones are saying the things and showing the pictures that support the easily digestible narrative that is repeated at the top, middle and bottom of every hour.

web 2.0 has degraded and complicated this formerly clear and simple landscape, but most people still find the big outlets for ongoing stories. because there is no clear answer to the question, "where do you get your news, who do you trust?" when relatives ask me what i read to cultivate my critical perspective. people who don't have time to figure out what is going on see the videos, hear the calm analysis, and internalize its logic.

also, jesus... the way the question and responses were framed was trying to create the biggest possible number for "support". this whole thing is juked six ways from sunday. which comes across as desperate.