A recent Gallup poll showed that six in ten Americans do not believe the mainstream media is trustworthy, a continuation of a steady decline in confidence over the years. The mainstream is in a panic -- they want to control what we think. What are the reasons for the decline? What is the future?
Sources: http://wapo.st/1GexQnO
A recent Gallup poll showed that six in ten Americans do not believe the mainstream media is trustworthy, a continuation of a steady decline in confidence over the years. The mainstream is in a panic -- they want to control what we think. What are the reasons for the decline? What is the future?
Sources: http://wapo.st/1GexQnO
A recent Gallup poll showed that six in ten Americans do not believe the mainstream media is trustworthy, a continuation of a steady decline in confidence over the years. The mainstream is in a panic -- they want to control what we think. What are the reasons for the decline? What is the future?
Sources: http://wapo.st/1GexQnO
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With me today is Daniel McAdams.
Daniel, I'm glad to see you today.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
There was a recent article last week, and I believe you have seen this article having to do with the media.
Interesting title.
It was Trust in the Media is at an all-time low.
What a terrible thing to happen to us, was the announcement by the Washington Post.
But my reaction was, this might be good news.
I think, you know, the whole problem I see going on is trying to figure out who's telling the truth.
You know, CIA and other agencies of government are telling us lies all the time, but we get some truth from the CIA agents on occasion.
You know, sorting this all out, and every politician doesn't lie.
But when it comes to a collusion between government and the media, I don't think the American people are getting a fair shake.
So if the American people are waking up, I think this is good news.
Yeah, exactly.
This is a survey that the Gallup organization does every year.
And year on, you can see from the past 10 years or so a steady decline in the percentage of Americans that trust in the mainstream media.
And now it's down to around 40%.
So 60%, 6 out of 10 Americans do not believe the mainstream media.
Well, the argument this Saliza, who wrote this article, makes is that you need a referee.
You need somebody to sort this out.
And they're feeling like there's nobody to do that.
And they're necessary.
They have to be the referees to make sure that we get the right propaganda as far as I'm concerned, because I think they're puppets for the government.
But this whole idea of a referee, who really is supposed to sort this out?
You never are going to have perfect reporters and you're never going to have a perfect source of information.
You have to have different ways of making judgments on what is true and what is not true.
Yeah, I mean, I think he has a point about referees, but what undermines his point is the fact that the mainstream media has been the referee for decades, but they've done such a terrible job because they've been a referee in just feeding us what usually what the regime wants us to get.
So it is true that on the internet it's easy to be led astray.
Some people go to sites that draw conclusions about things without evidence, and it does make it more difficult in some ways, but they did a terrible job too.
And the people over the past decade have been voting with their feet, so to speak.
And that's why the newsrooms in the country are virtually empty.
Nobody reads their stuff anymore.
He tries to narrow it down and explain this, and he says it's all partisan fighting.
There's certainly a lot of that, and that turns off a lot of people.
But I think there's a reason for the partisan fighting is because they're at an impasse.
I see things happening around the world in this country as well that things are changing.
Financially, they're changing.
Foreign policy is a disaster.
And it's sort of a bankrupt nation, literal bankruptcy, and a bankruptcy of ideas.
So then they go at each other.
At the same time, they go at each other.
You see that they generally endorse very similar philosophic ideas.
The other day we had a picture of Boehner and Nancy Pelosi up trying to make the point that there's not a whole lot of difference.
They get along quite well, but they do fight too.
And I think this is what's happening in the media.
And those who want to see a more concrete message, they want more control of this.
But I think they have a point.
They want more power because the people are becoming skeptical.
But instead of seeing this as a benefit and maybe changing their attitudes, they're looking to place blame on the special interests.
You know, it's funny, as I was reading the article, I thought exactly of what you said: that the Washington Post main complaint is that people are turned off because there's too much bickering, too much partisan fighting.
But I was thinking what you always say about politics, which is actually it's only the appearance of fighting because they all agree on the basic things.
And that's true in the media.
Whether you watch O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow, when it comes to issues of war, of the Federal Reserve, of real fundamental issues, they're in absolute agreement.
There's just some sprinkling of different flavors depending on if you're R or D.
Yeah, the good news is that the young people are more attuned to agreeing with us.
But if you were asked, and I'll ask you, what station right now, what TV station, news reports that we have in the major media is anti-Fed or even for an evaluation of the Fed?
Which one is non-interventionist foreign policy?
Which one truly cares about civil liberties?
Which party is the champion of either?
And where is it?
Where is the division?
Occasionally they'll allow you on CNBC or someplace like that to talk about the Fed a little bit.
But anytime you'll see a panel on Fox or MSNBC about whether or not we need to go into somewhere, everyone around the table agrees with each other.
There's never a non-interventionist voice.
They're not allowed.
Okay, do you think this can be all written off as just a conspiracy, or is there more to it than just a conspiracy of people colluding and getting together and orchestrating?
And I think this is important because there could be a case made for both.
Yeah, I think once you're in the media elite, the whole system is the whole system is faulty because once you're in the media elite, you rely for your sources on administration officials.
And if you don't have those sources, if they dry up, then you don't have a story and you're no longer the top journalist.
So there is a collusion between government and the media.
That's why none of them will take on each other.
And some people consider me a little bit too naive because I'll place a lot of emphasis on ideas.
And the collusion and the conspiracy can't be strong enough.
Others say, yes, they are, and they control everything, and they control the Fed and the budget and everything else.
But take, for instance, the Federal Reserve.
I think we've made some progress there.
We have a long way to go.
But think about six, eight, ten years ago, after 90 some years, nobody was questioning the Fed.
Yet today we're seeing this.
But my approach on this and the ideas and why I concentrate more on talking to people outside of Washington, outside the media, and especially talking to young people, is that people's ideas and attitudes have to change because then those ideas infiltrate.
So I don't paint everybody on TV as getting the morning message on what to do.
Even though some mornings I'll flip channels and the stories are one, two, three, exactly the same on the three major networks.
So there isn't, it might be that they're just all zombies.
You know, they don't do a lot of research, but they come from a philosophic viewpoint that endorse intervention in our lives, intervention in the economy, a Federal Reserve system to plan the economy, and they think that we should be the policemen of the world.
Yes.
And they think you shouldn't read other sites.
But look, you know, this is also a larger issue of people actually becoming consumers of media rather than being Fed's 6 o'clock news or the morning newspaper.
Look, we both read sites such as consortiumnews.com with Robert Perry doing incredible work, non-conspiratorial, very facts-based.
He's not necessarily in the mainstream media now, but there are plenty of sites and places like that.
David Stockman runs a very good site.
Lou Rockwell runs a very good site.
There's just so much out there that we now have this myriad of opportunity to consume information that no culture in history has enjoyed.
And so the fact that we're leaving behind these old gatekeepers shouldn't really surprise anyone.
Yeah, I think some of them long for the old time, old days when there were three major networks and they had a better chance on orchestrating the news.
Now it's so much bigger.
I mean, cable, there's cable networks and radio talk shows and internet programs.
And once again, sorting it out is a job because everything you read on the internet is not going to work.
So that has always been my goal is to try to contribute to finding out what the truth was.
My approach in Washington was not so much that I thought I could negotiate with John Boehner, become a player, like they always say, give them a vote for this and you get a vote here, was to try to change people's minds because no matter how much you negotiate and play those games in Washington, it doesn't change anything unless the people themselves decide, you know, welfareism doesn't work.
Socialism doesn't work.
And the Federal Reserve System doesn't work because it rewards the one percenters.
So it goes on and on.
So that, I think, makes the big difference.
And of course, then the approach becomes different.
But certainly participating in education and the spreading of this information to me is very crucial.
Yeah, and as you say, it's encouraging that if you look at the numbers, it's the younger people who are less trusting of the media than the older generation.
So things are going your way.
I'm certainly pleased with the way things are going, but I'm still very worried about what's happening.
I mean, you look around the world, we have our military troops in so many countries, and it seems we go out of our way to aggravate once allies and look for places to fight and fume over issues that are so unnecessary.
But I do believe that we are in an age where there's a change, an epic change going on, and something going to have to give for financial reasons because we won't be able to afford this.
And this is the reason this media complex is not working because they don't have the funds that they used to have.
But for me, it's an intellectual bankruptcy that is really the point.
But I see this as a tremendous opportunity to get young people energized with the ideas of liberty.
Frequently I use the word restore the Republic and restore the Constitution, but I would like more to advance the cause of liberty because that's really what this is all about.
And we have an opportunity because the failure is all around us.
Something has to replace the system that we have today.
And it's not just in the United States, it's worldwide.
So I am delighted that the conventional source of our information, the media, are on the ropes.
And to me, this is a good message, no matter how much they work to try to justify the existence of them being their own referees.