Mainstream Media?
Allen Forrest is writer, painter, graphic artist and activist who produces many cartoons illustrating the regressivism of capitalist societies. One cartoon by Forrest depicted a man and woman swimming in a shark-patrolled sea of MSM (aka mainstream media) lies. But why call it MSM or mainstream media?
Of course, any media would love to be branded as “mainstream media.” After all, “mainstream” is defined as: “considered normal, and having or using ideas, beliefs, etc. that are accepted by most people.” Specifically, what is often called the mainstream media refers to news media: a source for people to find out the how, why, where, and when of events and what these events mean or portend.
This awareness of events, both domestic and international, is important insofar as an enlightened populace is desired by a society. One assumes that most people want to be up-to-date and informed; at the very least people do not want to be kept in the dark on important matters or be deceived by their governments and media.
But the news media of “mainstream” outlets does not appear to have the confidence of the news consuming public. Gallup gauged Americans’ views of of the news media and noted on 27 February 2025: “Americans are now divided into rough thirds, with 31% trusting the media a great deal or a fair amount, 33% saying they do “not [trust it] very much,” and 36%, up from 6% in 1972, saying they have no trust at all in it.” In other words, 31% of Americans trust, to some degree, their so-called mainstream media and the rest don’t have trust in the “mainstream” media.
It should be starkly apparent that 31% constitute a definitive minority of a trusting population. Ergo, it is not “mainstream.” Others will refer to it as monopoly media, as did Ben Bagdikian, in the title of his books on media consolidation that posits media is presenting the views desired by the media consolidators. Another term that came into vogue is legacy media, which refers to the old mass media that predate the internet; for example, newspapers, television, radio, and magazines. Legacy media does proliferate online, as well. Others might simply note that there is state media (media funded by government and hence influenced by views desired by a government) or corporate media (media that seek profits and, therefore, will not want to upset the bottom line by losing potential advertisers).
The poll reveals that 69% of people, far exceeding a 50% cutoff, thus constituting a mainstream, are distrusting of the media.
Many people distrust or have even turned away from legacy media. With the advent of the internet an alternative media has cropped up. To the extent that people have given up on legacy media, then the alternative media may well represent a mainstream media for sourcing news and information. But is this media best depicted as an “alternative”? A more preferable name might be “independent media.” In this case, independent means not dependent on seeking profit beyond breaking even. In fact, many of these independent media editors and writers donate their time and efforts to provide relevant background information and reveal propaganda and disinformation.
Disinformation, being an intentional attempt to deceive, is of particular importance. In the case of the United States-led coalition’s invasion of Iraq, the disinformation campaign helped generate support from many sectors of the public. The legacy media kept repeating the disinformation, and much of the public believed it, being unable to discern the verisimilitude. The legacy media had a hand in the slaughter through its complicity that led to a range of 392,979–942,636 excess mortalities in Iraq. This was based on the fallacious claim that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, although United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspector Scott Ritter had warned against such an attack claiming that Iraq was “fundamentally disarmed.” As such, following four days of detailed information on the method and operation of disinformation, as well as relevant international law and conventions on propaganda, the July 2004 Halifax Symposium on Media and Disinformation held that “disinformation—its creation and propagation—is a crime against humanity and a crime against peace.”
Conclusion
I do not suggest ditching the legacy media; there is value in being aware of the narrative the legacy media is pushing. Approach legacy media the same way one should approach independent media. Use open-minded skepticism. Demand evidence for information presented. Reserve extra skepticism for media sources known to have disinformed in the past.
Consider describing a media accurately by name. Legacy media is not my mainstream news source. Independent media, media dedicated to informing others with factual accuracy, coherent analysis, and a commitment to morality is my mainstream.
From Alternative to Echo Chamber: Why Podcasts Are Starting to Look Like MSM
Like many others, I abandoned mainstream media long ago. The endless spin, shallow reporting, and predictable and propagandist narratives made it unbearable. Podcasts once seemed like the antidote: raw, unfiltered, and intellectually daring. But after countless hours of listening, I’ve begun to notice something unsettling: the global podcast universe is slowly morphing into the very thing it set out to replace.
It doesn’t matter which show you tune into—the same pundits, professors, and activists appear on rotation. The circle is closed. What once felt refreshing now feels predictable and self-referential. And part of the problem is the commercialization and ruthless competition for views and followers. Every podcaster wants traction, and the easiest shortcut is to invite a star guest. We, the audience, fall for it every time—believing that the bigger the name, the more profound the insights. The reality? Most celebrities are exhausted, endlessly repeating the same theses. Consistent, yes. But new? Rarely.
Despite the promise of broader horizons, most discussions follow the daily news cycle or focus on whichever conflict dominates headlines. Everything else disappears. The world is effectively shrinking—reduced to a handful of regions and a narrow set of concerns. Some hosts release multiple episodes in a single day. How deep can those conversations possibly be? Often, what masquerades as productivity is really just mass production. The speed comes at the expense of substance. Meanwhile, Western voices dominate. Women are often absent altogether. So we all end up in the world of westsplaining and mansplaining.
When podcasters endlessly guest on each other’s shows, swapping seats and recycling conversations, the result is not dialogue but repetition. An echo chamber with shinier packaging is still an echo chamber. The real challenge is not in lining up “big names” but in expanding the conversation: making it more polemical, more creative, more imaginative, more globally aware, more diverse.
Perhaps the true problem is our own laziness. We have grown accustomed to outsourcing our judgment, waiting for the “best” or most famous voices to tell us what to think. It is comfortable, quick, and flattering to believe we are following the wisdom of giants. But perhaps it is precisely this habit that leaves us intellectually dependent, recycling dominant (even though alternative, critical) insights instead of creating new ones.
Local and national podcasters are on the rise for quite some time, but their reach remains limited, often hindered by language barriers or uneven production quality. The same pattern repeats everywhere: chasing visibility, recycling familiar perspectives, and favoring recognizable names over truly fresh voices. The result is a public sphere that is narrower, less inventive, and less daring than it could be. But it remains a (relatively) profitable one…
If podcasts are to be more than mainstream media’s digital twin, we need to demand more—not only from hosts but from ourselves as listeners. We must cultivate curiosity beyond celebrity, seek voices we disagree with, challenge accepted wisdom, etc. Otherwise, the danger isn’t just boredom—it’s intellectual stagnation. If we do not break this cycle, we will soon discover that these “alternatives” were never really alternatives at all.
If we don’t insist on new voices (especially from the Global South/majority), bolder ideas, and sharper arguments, the “alternative” will soon be indistinguishable from the mainstream it once sought to escape.
Maybe I am wrong… I am just sharing my observations.
By the way, I still find Substack more inspirative than podcasts. It feels like a space where ideas can breathe, develop, and push us beyond the recycled talking points.
- Originally posted on Substack.
No comments:
Post a Comment