Mainstream Vs. Fringe Media: An Easy Knockout
If like myself you spend an inordinate amount of time in the dark world of comment threads on Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit, you likely have encountered a fair share of “woke” individuals telling you to “think for yourself.”
I recently made the classic mistake of scrolling through the comments of an article regarding a study that once again showed that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism (Really? I’m floored!). I was slightly encouraged by the majority of people actually defending science and reason. But there it was inevitably: that one asshat claiming anyone who trusted the article or the CDC had not done any “research.”
You can’t get through one day on the internet without hearing from the “do your own research” guy, who in a laughably predictable way accuses everyone of being part of the herd while simultaneously sharing a link to some far right, far left, or just far out there conspiracy-laden, fact-resistant, fringe site. This particular individual proceeded to share a link to Intellihub, a site that would be great satire if it was not serious when it claimed, “Hillary Clinton ran weapons into Libya for the Obama administration,” — and if people didn’t actually believe it. I had to shower after spending several minutes scrolling through their dozens of articles and videos, including a conspiracy-laced investigation into the Las Vegas shooting conducted by the founder of the website.
I’ve always found great irony in those willing to accuse others of being “sheeple” for trusting in mainstream media, while simultaneously rolling over and lapping up any information handed to them by a YouTube video or blog at some wordpress.com address. These people believe they are privy to some sort of inside information on, as Rational Wiki so accurately describes it, “whatever fringe issue is currently in vogue,” unlike the “great unwashed masses that are blissfully unaware.”
But even outside of these circles, mainstream has become a pejorative term. It doesn’t help that Trump daily berates the “mainstream media” for its negative coverage of him. We even have a nifty little shorthand for it — MSM. So why for some people is information from a major, reputable news organization disdainful? Yet Alex Jones can claim the U.S. military is using “gay bombs,” and some people will place higher value on his word simply because it is outside of the mainstream.
Because I encounter this mentality all too frequently, I think it is instructive to take a moment to compare say the Wall Street Journal, CNN, and the BBC to the opposite end of the spectrum, Infowars, Natural News, and that random ass blog run by some man no one has ever heard of. Major news organizations have the public spotlight shining with 1000 watts on them at all times. Strong incentive exists for news outlets to make sure facts are correct in order to preserve their reputations. If major media outlets report inaccurately, they risk being corrected by competitors, libels lawsuits, and even being called out by Mr. Trump himself. These sources will regularly issues corrections or apologies in response to errors in reporting.
Mainstream media has avenues to information that we as regular citizens do not have or do not regularly utilize. I can tell you as a blogger, Obama probably won’t take my phone call for an interview. But major media outlets have unparalleled access to important figures, inside resources, and the ability to have reporters on the ground as major events unfold in our country or around the world. If a whistle-blower or leaker wants to hand over game-changing documents, they are probably not going to The Real Gab first (yet).
On the opposite side of the coin you have your fringe news sources. We’re not talking some sources that lean a little heavily to the left or right, such as Mother Jones or the National Review respectively, that have strong slants but generally factual information. We are talking about so far outside of the mainstream they have leapt right out of the river. These websites, talk-radio stations, social media streams, YouTube channels, and blogs are the go-to media sources of the “think for yourself” crowd. These are the same people who condescendingly ask if you believe everything the government and mainstream media tell you, and who use the word “sheeple” in a non-ironic fashion.
If you see, “I know this post may make you uncomfortable but I’m just trying to open your eyes,” stop reading. Because usually it’s followed by some story so mindbogglingly implausible that you wonder how you could be Facebook friends with anyone that dense. I delved into this world of fringe sites for the sake of research and was A. very offended when the the first story on Infowars read “10 Reasons Why Harry Potter is Right-Wing, and B. horrified when I realized how many people that lack the cognitive ability to realize that the government probably is not controlling the weather.
One of the first sites I explored, AbelDanger.org, argued that the Christchurch shooting had to be a sham since social media sites, the New Zealand government, and others had worked to remove the video from public view. Of course this left Mr. Danger no choice but to assume, as conspiracy theorists usually do, that it could only be because they had something to hide. He then preceded to fill in the blanks with his own made up account. I actually read one of his article that contained these words, “I AM CALLING IT: CHRISTCHURCH SHOOTING NEVER HAPPENED.” I want those two minutes of my life back.
Evidence, proof, corroborating accounts, none of this is a prerequisite for these “news” sources. But being small and on the fringe allows these sites to make wild, unsubstantiated claims and that go unchallenged in their own communities. I certainly wouldn’t hold my breath for them to issue any corrections given that most of their reporting is fabricated in the first place. In fact many of these sites derive their popularity not from their commitment to fact, but from their willingness to share stories that spin a particular narrative. In a previous article on conspiracy theories I discussed how they allow people to create a simple explanation of a complex world. These “news” sites are similarly designed with the intention not to inform, but to confirm the biases of their followers.
If you believe the government, corporations, and all scientists are in a giant plot to keep you from the truth, you can find a story on one of these sites to shove in the face of your sheeple friends — it just probably won’t be true. Many of these sites have a common threads: the Jews are controlling the world, 9/11 was inside job, there is always more than one shooter in any mass shooting, yada, yada, yada. In the far right publications the liberal media is the enemy, on the far left it tends to be corporations, especially Monsanto. Throw in a dash of pseudoscience and science denialism and you too could start your very own fringe news site. Don’t worry you don’t need advanced web design skills since almost all these sites appear as though they haven’t made it out of the 90's.
I unfortunately stumbled into the mecca of alternative news aptly called “AlternativeNews.com,” which combines all of the wonderful qualities listed above into one convenient source. It pulls from several wingnut, pseudoscience, and conspiracy sites and puts them in one convenient and entirely crazy platform that advertises itself as “The Independent News Source for Free-Thinking People.” A quick scroll through Alternative News and I learned many new things. I found out that global warming is a “total hoax and scam” that is being used by social engineers around the world to scare people into giving up their rights. I also unveiled a mini-documentary that states, and I quote, “Left-wing media run by actual demon-possessed anti-human EVIL entities.”
You can really find any version of events to suit your taste on these fringe news sources, but you will find one major thing missing — accountability. I tend to picture every conspiracy blogger as a guy sitting in his underwear covered in Cheeto crumbs typing away furiously in his mom’s basement. When so many of these sites opt not to have about pages or disclaimers of ownership, it’s easy to leap to that conclusion.
While that’s probably not 100% fair, the reality is that you have no idea at all where this information is coming from. Many are run by one founder doing their own “investigations” and “research.” They do not have any inside information but are great at filling in gaps in their knowledge with their own speculation and innuendo. I would argue believing these forms of media doesn’t make you above the herd, enlightened, or woke — it just makes you gullible.
I am not arguing that mainstream media is perfect. Desire for clicks or ratings can guide what news outlets choose to report on and consequently important stories can get brushed over or left in the dust. Though, I’d also maintain that as the clickers and viewers we are all partly responsible for the type of content that’s published. More so, news can be laden with op-eds or pundits on television, which could be conflated with hard reporting.
Even outside of opinion pieces mainstream sources are not free from bias. But fringe news is entirely beholden to ideology and painting a certain world view, completely regardless of facts and reality. Ignoring the financial incentives of fringe sites while simultaneously accusing mainstream media of being chained to their corporate masters is common but disingenuous. Especially given that Alex Jones, at a net worth of $10 million, is clearly profiting off his enterprise — and he’s not the only one.
We can point out the faults of mainstream media until the cows come home. But that does not give us license to assume that because it is not infallible it lacks value. We risk equating respectable news organization with truly shitty sources of information. The mainstream account reported by your major networks and papers is after all a convergence of eye witness accounts, experts, documents, and on-the-scene fact gathering, rather than the machinations of a raving lunatic with no prerequisites except access to the internet and opposable thumbs.
Is it more likely that all of the major news sources and thousands of journalists are part of a giant (and might I add, incredibly well-concealed) plot to deceive you, or that some fringe theory supported by a few uncredentialed people and a sketchy video is the real version of events? When you boil it down, wouldn’t you rather have a slightly biased news source subjected to many levels of review than one that is complete fiction?
An article in the WaPo explained that the lines between mainstream and fringe news are blurring, partly due to Trump and his embracement of alternative new sources. During the campaign he assured Alex Jones, “Your reputation is amazing,” in case you had any doubts about where Trump stands on this entirely too successful conspiracy theorist and rabble-rouser. Jones has millions of listeners and readers, and had two million Youtube subscribers before his channel got pulled down. He has been instrumental in perpetuating some of the most heinous theories from Pizza Gate to claiming Sandy Hook was a hoax.
Trump has unfortunately proven that he has no allegiance to verifiable fact and has publicly repeated many of Jones’ unsubstantiated claims including birtherism, 9/11 trutherism, and the assertion that millions of people voted illegally in 2016, which was debunked by every mainstream media source — and Trump’s own investigative commission. As Paul Farhi contends “many of Trump’s more controversial assertions…have come from the murky swamp of right-wing, libertarian and flat-out paranoid sources that have proliferated and thrived as the Internet and social media have grown.” While this was in reference to the campaign, his tenuous relationship with the truth has not improved during his presidency.
As the power of the social media allows stories to spread before any legitimate source have the time to set the record straight, these fringe sites have the potential to gain more traction. And with a President who acts as the ultimate mouthpiece for many of these outlets, they become increasingly mainstreamed. Top that off with the annoying army on social media determined to shame all the “sheeple,” and you have a dangerous recipe for heavily distorted or entirely false news getting conflated with the truth.
I have not always preferred the mainstream when it comes to fashion, music, or other trends. I spent my entire high school career trying to find the most underground punk bands that I could and attending shows in people’s basement. Though let’s face it, “Call Me Maybe” is the catchiest song ever and I have no shame about that. But we should be careful not to confuse unique tastes with information that lives on the fringes for a reason. When “thinking for yourself” means buying into absolute bullshit, it sure does not make you any cooler. Being able to critically evaluate your sources of information does — even when it means swimming with the stream.