The war on "unreliable media" on the internet has been planned as a long shot since at least 2011. What we see now is an attempt to put existing plans on the fast track and pull a fast one ( conspiracy )

submitted by Skyrock

Here is an article from 2011 about Hillary speaking about an information war of the US against Al-Jazeera, Russia and China and how America is losing it.

They have probably been preparing plans to quell alternative media since that day at the very least.

What we have seen now in the days since the election is the spontaneously created list of unreliable media by that professor, all of the MSM picking it up the following day, and Obama picking up the same topic today during his visit in Germany.

Speculation time:

The establishment wanted to put the squeeze on alternative media, but has waited for the 2016 election to have it afterwards enforced by whoever would win the race (Democrats, Republicans - doesn't actually matter which, both would jump as soon as their masters snapped their fingers).

The election of Trump has thrown a monkey wrench into that plan, and we see now a panicked attempt by Obama and the establishment to put these plans on the fast track and pull a fast one on the people as long as they are still in charge.

Does that sound believeable, or should I take off my tinfoil hat?

path

Actually, I don't trust snopes at all. Their narrative falls right in line with the MSM, and there's no trusting the corporate sponsored, establishment mouthpiece that is the MSM. You sound very reasonable, so I don't want to be insulting. However, people will see your comment and believe it to be reasonable also, but I assure you, MSM is nothing but the mouthpiece for the elite. They will not ever attempt to inform us of anything that matters. It's all intended to divide and conquer, or distract. Please, any time you watch the MSM, be extremely critical and skeptical.

llegendary

How is it that "unreliable media" is actually more reliable than old media?

It's laughable.

heygeorge

Thank you so much for saying that. It warms my cold, cold heart to hear.

Yes, it is possible that the administration is now faced with the monster of uncontrolled media.

Unfortunately, leading back to my initial response, we the consumer have given ample evidence that we are not worthy of separating obvious fiction from fact, and it will be used against us. It's also worthy to note that not everyone in gov. is evil. I like to think that a great many (the by-far majority) get into it and continue in it because they really think they are making a positive difference. But once we simply take a look at what sort of person feels worthy of speaking for so many, we can easily find they--practically as a rule--are the sort who looks down upon the common man.

Forgive me if my point isn't entirely cogent, I'm on mobile and largely unable to even look over what I've said.

crazy_eyes

The first amendment was supposed to provide us with an uncontrollable media

heygeorge

I don't disagree. However, in the intervening years, major media has proven to often be a convenient lapdog for the administration in power. And now, that cozy relationship is getting lost. Unfortunately, the race for clicks just as often trumps the race for fact.

heygeorge

I think in a lot of ways it's an attempt by misinformed do-gooders to help! I've been ranting and raving for well over a year here about how repeating the really stupid and unsourced stories harms the real message of uncovering bias and corruption.

I think this movement is symptomatic of the viral nature of fringe claims.

Tangentially, the term 'Post-Truth' was coined in the 90's and literally a boom title in 2005, so it's not a brand new thing that's just getting out there.

With all that said... Stay vigilant, brotha!