Dave Smith30 November 2024

Why Does Mainstream Media Suck So Much? - Dave Smith - #871

0Frameworks

16Insights

Insights & moments

The myth-busts, hot takes, explainers, and tools worth keeping.

Myth Buster· 1

Myth Buster12:00

The Media Can't Admit It Got Every Major Story Wrong

Dave argues that corporate media outlets, even in their most self-critical post-mortems after the 2024 election, cannot honestly admit their core failure: consistently getting major stories wrong in a way that always favors the establishment.

Lists the Iraq War, the 2008 financial crisis, COVID, and Russiagate as stories the media got completely wrong
Notes the pattern that media errors always favor the CIA/establishment position
Media insisted the recent economy was 'great' while it was actually terrible for working people
Post-election post-mortems split between blaming sexism/racism or admitting minor tactical mistakes, never the core dishonesty

“isn't it convenient that they always get it wrong on the side of the CIA it's so bizarre”
Dave Smith · 13:30

#media-bias#media-trust#fact-check

Hot Take· 4

Hot Take00:00

The Media Doesn't Realize It's Not the Mainstream Anymore

Dave argues the corporate media functions essentially as state propaganda, and cites Tony Hinchcliffe's Madison Square Garden set going viral (millions of views across clips) while CNN's coverage of it got only around 200,000 views, showing viewers can now catch the media's spin in real time.

Corporate media in most Western countries functions essentially as state media, covering for powerful people
Tony Hinchcliffe's MSG set clips got millions of views on Twitter (3M, 7M, 600K on separate clips)
CNN's daytime coverage of the same event only got about 200,000 views
Audiences can now directly compare the media's narrative to the raw footage and catch the spin

“they might as well be State media”
Dave Smith · 00:30

“you got to step it up here guys you got to adjust and they just didn't adjust”
Dave Smith · 02:00

#media-bias#corporate-media#tony-hinchcliffe

Hot Take14:30

Why Kamala Harris Skipping Rogan Was Actually the Smart Move

Contrary to the popular narrative that Kamala Harris made a mistake by not going on Joe Rogan's podcast, Dave argues it would have been a disaster for her because she isn't equipped to speak unscripted for three hours — and long-form conversation has become the new bar candidates must clear.

Kamala Harris 'is not built to be able to speak openly and unguarded for three hours'
Going on Rogan would have exposed that she has no deep policy views
There is now a new unwritten rule that to be president you must sit for a long, unedited conversation
Trump did many such long-form interviews; the progressive establishment isn't built for that format because it relies on shutting down opponents rather than defending positions

“there's no way that would have gone good for her there's no way it wouldn't have been a disaster for her”
Dave Smith · 15:00

#kamala-harris#joe-rogan#election-2024

Hot Take29:00

Journalists Fleeing to Bluesky Won't Change Who Has the Audience

Dave dismisses the wave of journalists and left-leaning users leaving X for Bluesky after Elon Musk's takeover and Trump endorsement, arguing that people who relied on censoring opposition to win arguments are simply removing themselves from the competition.

Many leaving X relied on their opposition being censored or removed
One election pollster who got 2024 wrong announced he was leaving for Bluesky
Predicts the exodus won't change which accounts and shows have the largest audiences
Worries that platform-splitting will worsen echo chambers since people lose exposure to opposing views

“to go get things wrong by yourself okay have fun”
Dave Smith · 30:00

#twitter-x#bluesky#elon-musk

Hot Take53:30

It's Easy to Criticize, Much Harder to Build

Dave and Chris discuss how the right's success over the last five years has been as a rebellious voice pushing back against overreach, but now holding power means it must actually deliver results — a much harder task against entrenched interests that will fight deportation and spending-cut policies at every level.

The right's recent success has largely been oppositional rather than constructive
Now in power, it must implement policy (e.g., mass deportation) against real-world resistance from courts, activists, media, and local law enforcement
Any mistreatment incident during deportations will be amplified into a humanitarian narrative
Framed as the shift from 'speaking truth to power' to actually being in power

“it's very easy to criticize something and it's much harder to build something”
Dave Smith · 55:30

#trump-administration#governance#deportation

Explainer· 4

Explainer27:00

The 'Owning College Kids' Video Era, and Why It Had to End

Dave reflects on the Ben Shapiro/Jordan Peterson 'destroys' video trend of the mid-2010s, arguing it revealed real intellectual atrophy on campuses because no one had pushed back on those ideas before. He compares it to physical muscle atrophy — weak arguments need repeated challenge to get stronger.

Shapiro/Peterson 'owning' videos exposed that campus ideas had never been seriously challenged
Compares ideological weakness to unused muscles atrophying
Says the fix, like fitness, is repeated exposure to pushback
Believes this applies to any side of the political spectrum that hasn't been challenged

“it's like anything else it's like if you haven't been to the gym in years... the only answer is you got to start lifting heavy…”
Dave Smith · 28:30

#ben-shapiro#free-speech#campus-culture

Explainer41:00

The Media's 'Tip of the Iceberg' Playbook

Dave and Chris break down a recurring media tactic: take a guest's single misstatement or joke, claim it was intentional, then present it as proof of a hidden, much darker ideology. They contrast this with audiences who've watched thousands of hours of a podcast and know the 'whole iceberg.'

Media narrative move: claim the person 'meant to say' whatever the controversial statement was
Then frames the statement as representative of a hidden bigoted ideology, not an isolated comment
Rogan's audience, having watched hundreds of hours, has 'seen the whole iceberg' and rejects the framing
Dave says this makes him more cautious about how he phrases things, fearing bad-faith misconstruction

“Millions...of people were saying I've seen the whole Iceberg... and I don't think that you're right”
Chris Williamson · 41:30

#cancel-culture#media-tactics#joe-rogan

Explainer48:30

Angela McArdle's 'Phenomenal' Run at the Libertarian Party

Dave credits Libertarian Party chair Angela McArdle with reimagining the third party's role in 2024, securing assurances from Trump before the election, even while acknowledging the US system is structurally rigged against third parties ever taking real power.

Third-party politics in the US is structurally rigged against parties like the Libertarians
Angela McArdle, the LP chair, is credited with getting pre-election assurances from Trump
Dave separates his personal libertarian worldview (liberty vs. tyranny) from the party's practical prospects

#libertarian-party#third-party#politics

Explainer50:00

Why Washington DC Corruption Is Structural, Not Personal

Dave argues DC corruption is a direct function of the government's sheer size and coercive funding model — extracting wealth through taxation and money-printing, then redistributing it to political allies — which explains why DC suburbs have unusually high millionaire density.

Government spending is approaching $7 trillion a year, funded via taxation (threat of force) rather than voluntary purchase
Money is also printed, devaluing existing wealth, or borrowed against future taxation
This extraction-then-redistribution to political cronies explains DC's high millionaire density
Frames the Libertarian answer as drastic cuts to government spending, citing DOGE as a promising signal

“there's more millionaires in the suburbs of Washington DC than there is anywhere else in the world that's the corruption that's it right there”
Dave Smith · 51:00

#libertarianism#government-corruption#doge

Story· 4

Story08:00

Why Young Men Turn to Andrew Tate: A Father's Take

Dave argues that critics of Andrew Tate identify a problem without offering an alternative role model for young men. He describes how boys grow up being told their natural masculinity is 'toxic,' using an anecdote comparing his infant daughter's calm affection to his son's physical rambunctiousness to argue masculine and feminine traits are innate, not bad.

Boys often grow up fatherless, medicated, and taught by mostly female influences that masculinity is 'toxic'
Dave's daughter as a toddler was calm and affectionate; his son dove headfirst off his lap from 18 months old
Argues the system implicitly favors femininity and punishes normal male behavior
Concludes that if you dislike Andrew Tate as a role model, you have to offer an alternative

“from the very beginning we're instilling in these kids that masculinity is bad and femininity is good so of course they're going to look for…”
Dave Smith · 09:30

#masculinity#andrew-tate#parenting

Story23:00

The Wesley Clark 'Seven Countries' Admission

Dave recounts retired General Wesley Clark's on-record claim, made on Democracy Now, that in 2001 he saw Pentagon plans to topple the governments of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and others — years before the official justifications like WMDs and genocide prevention were used to launch each war.

Wesley Clark said he saw plans to overthrow multiple governments back in 2001, before 9/11-era justifications were invoked
Iraq's stated reason was WMDs and Bin Laden ties; Libya's and Syria's were framed as genocide prevention
Dave argues the justifications were manufactured after the plan already existed
The wars caused millions of deaths and trillions in costs, which Dave cites as why media/establishment has 'lost its right to exist'

“four-star General Wesley Clark who's on tape on Democracy Now saying that in 2001 he saw the plans... to go topple the government of Iraq…”
Dave Smith · 23:00

#foreign-policy#iraq-war#wesley-clark

Story32:00

The Original Sin of Money in Politics: Woodrow Wilson and the Fed

Responding to criticism of Elon Musk funding Trump's campaign, Dave points to Woodrow Wilson's 1912 presidential run, funded by big bankers, after which Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law — handing private banking interests control of the nation's money supply, a practice Dave calls 'the most blatant scam in the world.'

Wilson's 1912 campaign was funded by big bankers
After winning, he signed the Federal Reserve Act, giving private banks control of the credit supply
Frames this as private interests creating money and lending it at interest to the public
Argues this 'buy the candidate, get policy' dynamic is just how modern politics has worked for over a century

“it's like the most blatant scam in the world and this goes on all the time”
Dave Smith · 33:00

#federal-reserve#money-in-politics#elon-musk

Story57:00

Trump's First Term Had No Plan — The Russia Deal That Never Happened

Dave explains that Trump's biggest failure in his first term wasn't a lack of good ideas but a lack of a plan for executing them against entrenched resistance, illustrated by his abandoned 2016 promise to strike a deal with Russia and fight ISIS together once the 'Russian spy' narrative took hold.

Trump ran in 2016 promising détente with Russia and cooperation against ISIS in Syria
Once accused of being a Russian asset, actually pursuing that deal would have looked like proof of the accusation
Trump had to abandon a policy that might otherwise have been achievable
Dave says Trump likely never understood how deep 'the swamp' was or what resistance he'd face

“he couldn't do that so he had to back off of that”
Dave Smith · 58:00

#donald-trump#russia#foreign-policy

Q&A· 1

Q&A03:30

Responding to Sam Harris: 'Why Is a Comedian Explaining Geopolitics?'

Dave responds to Sam Harris's public criticism that Rogan having a comedian break down Ukraine or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is absurd. Dave concedes the underlying point but argues independent shows are simply more intelligent and thoughtful than corporate media, citing Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald as an example.

Sam Harris publicly called out Dave for discussing geopolitics as 'just a comedian'
Dave agrees it's fair that institutions should be more credible
Argues shows like Rogan's are more intelligent and thoughtful than CNN or ABC News
Cites Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald conversations as more substantive than corporate outlets
Says he reads thinkers across the spectrum, calling Noam Chomsky 'must read' despite disagreeing politically

“shows like Joe Rogan's show...there's just what's going on is is just levels more intelligent and thoughtful and interesting than anything that's happening at CNN…”
Dave Smith · 04:30

#sam-harris#independent-media#media-criticism

Takeaway· 2

Takeaway09:30

Radical Politics Rises When the Establishment Fails

Dave lays out a historical thesis: far-left and far-right movements only gain real traction when the moderate establishment has clearly failed. He points to Bernie Sanders-style socialism and right-wing populism as symptoms of institutional failure rather than ideology winning on its own merits.

'Far right or far-left radical groups actually take over... because the establishment has failed on every level' — always true historically
A healthy, prosperous society wouldn't see far-left/far-right movements gaining traction
Trump's 'drain the swamp' message unified voters through shared distrust of institutions more than policy agreement
Dave says this distrust, not enthusiasm for Trump, is what got him to vote for Trump

“usually when far right or far-left radical groups actually take over or get a strong foothold it's because the establishment has failed on every level”
Dave Smith · 09:30

#politics#populism#establishment

Takeaway40:00

Why Lying About a Bigger Show Than Yours Is a Losing Strategy

Dave explains why it's strategically foolish for smaller media outlets to lie about him or Rogan: when your show has a fraction of the audience of the person you're lying about, far more people will hear the truth directly than will ever hear your version.

If a 2,000-view show lies about a 2-million-view show, most people will hear the truth first
The few who hear the lie likely already know it's false since they follow the larger show too
This strategy only worked when media had an information monopoly and could unilaterally brand someone unlistenable

“if I've got 2 million and you've got 2,000 and your strategy is to lie about me well that's a really stupid strategy”
Dave Smith · 40:00

#media-strategy#joe-rogan#misinformation