Here's the News: Trump Wins New Hampshire And The Media Is Scared...
With the New Hampshire primary later today, are the legacy media the defenders of democracy that they cast themselves as, or participants in the circus that leads to a “Trump Bump” and a return to the skyrocketing corporate media profits that they during the years of the first Trump campaign and presidency? --💙Support this channel directly here: https://bit.ly/RussellBrand-SupportWATCH me LIVE weekdays on Rumble: https://bit.ly/russellbrand-rumbleVisit the new merch store: https://bit.ly/Stay-Free-StoreFollow on social media:X: @rustyrocketsINSTAGRAM: @russellbrandFACEBOOK: @russellbrand
Hello there you Awakening Wonders on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you download your podcasts.
We really appreciate you, our listeners, and want to bring you more content.
We will be delivering a podcast every day, seven days a week, every single day.
You'll get a detailed breakdown of current topics that the mainstream media should be covering, but if they are covering, they're amplifying establishment messages and not telling you the truth.
Once a week we bring you in-depth conversations with guests like Jordan Peterson, RFK Jr, Sam Harris, Vandana Shiva, Gabor Mate and many more.
Now enjoy this episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Remember, there's an episode every single day to educate and elevate our consciousness together.
Stay free and enjoy the episode.
This week was about excess deaths and the surprising, and let's face it, mortifying,
8% rise in child deaths in the UK and possibly beyond that.
We did an exclusive video covering John Campbell's content and look at what could be causing these excess deaths
across the world.
Certainly the legacy media are never going to tell you about it,
so support our content so we can grow this movement together,
because out there in the legacy media space is a complicated world,
even those that claim to hate Donald Trump more than Satan.
More than Beelzebub.
More than the darkest imaginable realms seem to be secretly rooting for him because when Trump's out of office and out of the picture, they have to lay off legacy media workers.
Their advertising revenue slumps.
So, is it possible that the reason the hysteria and amplification of the anti-Trump narrative continues to abide and even increases because the legacy media need Trump, Now Trump is expected to win New Hampshire tonight and of course he rinsed it in Iowa.
But there was a rush to announce his victory, perhaps preemptively, because legacy media outlets wanted to be the first to unveil the information.
Let's have a look at some legacy media reporting around Trump and see if we can see where the hypocrisy emerges.
Oh, we don't know the number yet, Julie Fine.
Thank you so much.
But the Associated Press has officially called it, Donald Trump wins the Iowa Republican Caucuses.
That is 32 minutes after they began.
We have this race called, at least in terms There's a reason the news looks how it does.
There's a reason it's often a male and a female in suits in front of important institutional buildings.
It's in order to suggest that the news is something other than a television program.
But it is editorialized.
That means they select information to amplify, they select information to ignore, and significantly they are funded by their partners in marketing.
In this case, in talking about cable news, overwhelmingly by Big Pharma.
Have you noticed any news stories in the last couple of years that were biased towards outcomes that might be favourable to Big Pharma?
Let me know in the chat and the comments.
So when it comes to covering Donald Trump, they are massively compromised because clearly, ideologically, they do not like Donald Trump.
He is a populist.
He is a candidate that blue-collar workers tend to flock towards.
He is anti-elite, anti-establishment.
Those are just a few of the things about Trump they loathe and despise.
And yet Trump for them is ratings gold.
So how do legacy media organizations that are dependent on advertising revenue support in an unbiased way on Donald Trump?
The simple truth is they are unable to.
We have to get that we'll get to the Hitler stuff in a second.
I mean, I think that story's been covered.
He was a really bad, genocidal lunatic that used folk myth, the music of Wagner, even Hindu symbolism and Roman pageantry to revivify a dormant German nation that had been crushed by the First World War.
We don't need to get back into, oh, you're going to say that Trump's here.
No, that is news.
But let's start, though, with I'll make a chart.
The fact that Donald Trump... Mike is making a chart.
They're making the news up.
I'll do a chart.
Is this chart gonna be reasons that Donald Trump is like Hitler?
Firstly, haircuts.
They both had unusual haircuts.
It's not well.
We know this.
But this guy, he's looking so old, he's shuffling around.
They act as if it's ethically incorrect as well to condemn Biden on the basis of his physical appearance and his age, but they do it for Trump because they've got no principles at all, have they?
All the while they're talking about this, they're thinking, we need Donald Trump.
Without Donald Trump, pretty soon it's going to be, Micah, oh, sorry, you don't have Micah.
We had to make her redundant because Biden is doing another term, basically at this point, like an ash cloud from a crypt and we can't afford to pay Micah's wages.
He's going through this thing and then about why he should have total immunity, total immunity even when he crosses the line.
It is pure, sheer authoritarianism and tyranny.
If that is your depiction and understanding of authoritarianism and tyranny, I'd love to see how they're handling the numerous stories around Hunter Biden, his business interests and their potential connection to Joe Biden, whether that's the Burisma stuff in Ukraine, these potential Chinese deals, of course, the reporting that was censored during the time of the election, because if something is corrupt, and tyrannical, then it has to be corrupt and tyrannical
whichever side does it.
Otherwise you're simply advocating for a particular ideology while
simultaneously amplifying the threat of Trump in order to have a powerful demon
and opponent in their preferred media space so they can continually agitate
for advertising.
So we have that part of it.
It is Trump at his most dangerous, but also Trump at his most detached from reality.
He's really losing it.
We've been getting glimpses now of him shuffling around and looking lost.
Have they covered Joe Biden in that bike shop?
Look at this.
This is Morgan Sherman and Sam.
It's crazy.
So there you go.
There's a good degree of hysteria there and agitation.
So it would be surprising to learn, wouldn't it, that during the periods where Trump was not in office and not in the news cycle, their figures and revenue suffered.
We'll get into that in a moment.
Let's have a look at some more MSNBC hysteria.
Donald Trump supporters are right there with him.
Even as his rhetoric has become more blatantly fascist, they want what he wants.
Like, if you're going to scrutinize rhetoric right down to the sort of colloquial idiosyncrasies, what about the moment where Joe Biden says, no, the bombing of the Yemen isn't working in so much it isn't impacting the Houthis, but we're going to continue with it.
That actually goes beyond fascism.
That's into the kind of Orwellian dystopianism of the reversal of the meaning of language.
And of course, many of you will be saying right now, and perhaps even typing in the comments, the goal is not to end wars, the goal is forever wars.
Don't you think that these kind of deeply cynical globalist issues are more significant than the tribal polemicism and fanfare that surrounds either of these two candidates, frankly?
In short, if they are indeed legitimately concerned about Donald Trump, why are they not analysing and scrutinising corruption, hypocrisy and authoritarianism within the party that they support?
In the past year, Trump has called for the termination of the Constitution, said he wants to be dictator for a day.
That was a joke.
I watched that.
He said that on, I think, Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity, wasn't it?
And he said, for a day, I'll be dictator, build the wall.
It's sort of a joke.
Now, the fact that they must know that that's a joke and they're reporting on it as if it's serious shows you that they are kind of tweaking the dials.
Well, what if that wasn't a joke?
What if we portray that in its worst possible light?
I know about these legacy media tactics because I know how I personally have been victim to it.
They take something that was out in the open and clear and explicit, for example my promiscuity, dial it up, amplify it, make it look as awful as possible and then present it to you as news.
What do the legacy media report on and what do they ignore?
They ignore things that could be detrimental to the interests of the powerful and they celebrate and amplify stories that are antithetical to your personal and particular interests.
Trump has fundamentally transformed the Republican Party to the point that the party itself has taken on his grievances and the agenda of vengeance that he's openly planning if he wins a second term.
Aside from agenda of vengeance sounding like a bit of a Sith sequel, From an overly franchised Star Wars movie.
Doesn't it seem to you that there is a bit of an agenda of vengeance against Trump himself as he deals with indictment after indictment after they continually pursue him through various courts?
It seems to me somewhat politically motivated rather than, we must have justice for all of these various diffuse frauds.
As Tom Nichols wrote in The Atlantic this week, quote, these voters now want to get even with their fellow citizens, not for what's been done to Trump, but for what they feel has been done to them.
They were certain that 2016 would finally bring them the recognition and respect they craved.
Instead, Trump set them up for a steady diet of ego-bruising rebukes from other voters.
Ego bruising, rebukes from other voters.
It's an interesting piece of analysis and you would think, given the nature of that invective, that these news organisations would legitimately be opposed to Trump.
But are they?
Here we go again.
About 30 minutes into counting the first votes of the Iowa caucus, the Associated Press, CNN, NBC and various other news networks called it for Donald Trump.
Donald Trump wins the Iowa Republican Caucuses.
That is 32 minutes after they began.
There was little doubt that the former president would easily dominate the rural state but the rush to declare him the victor in violation of policies that prohibit such calls before the polls close was a blatant attempt to soak up the election night audience.
It is difficult because of course they have an agenda beyond conveying information.
This followed another departure from traditional editorial practices when MSNBC and CNN refused to screen Trump's victory speech MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, casting herself and her network as defenders of the Republic, justified the unusual decision with typical exaggerated commentary.
Maddow said her network would suffer by knowingly broadcasting untrue things, which is an extraordinary claim to present themselves as gatekeepers, and that is why you cannot trust the legacy media.
That's why you should consider supporting our channel, where right now you can watch an exclusive video for our supporters on 8% excess death rises in children.
There's a link in the description.
You can follow that here.
The Iowa primary heralded democracy falling to an authoritarian and potentially fascist form of government.
For his part, Jake Tapper of CNN suggested his network had to shield viewers from anti-immigrant rhetoric.
I suppose there has to be a continual amplification of the hysteria simply to provide a sense of narrative.
It's pretty clear they don't like Donald Trump.
It's pretty clear that what they want is neoliberal authoritarianism with strong globalist ties.
An America that is run by the agenda of NATO, the WHO, the WEF.
Defined and confined by cultural war issues.
It's pretty clear that that is the agenda.
You don't need to, every single day, keep bloody well telling everybody that.
Trump responded in kind.
NBC and CNN refused to air my victory speech, he said at a rally in New Hampshire the following day.
Think of it because they are crooked, they're dishonest and frankly they should have their licenses or whatever they
have taken away.
[Laughs]
Their licenses or whatever they have, typically dismissive.
If you watch Trump's victory speech in Iowa, it was full of just sort of politeness
and I think that one of the mistakes they're making is by portraying Trump as this incredibly intoxicating and
charismatic leader who they can't even broadcast, makes him somewhat more
appealing, particularly when understandably trust in the media is at
an all time deserved and understandable low.
Their refusal to even platform Donald Trump, I think, and let me know if you agree with this in the chat and the
comments, makes Trump seem more legitimate.
And with that, election season has started, along with the outrage cycle from which both Trump and legacy media reap mutual benefit.
The more media outlets lean into partisan anti-Trump coverage, the more gleefully he campaigns against the media as a biased institution.
It's a pattern that first took shape nine years ago when Trump launched his campaign with a series of inflammatory statements.
Mexican migrants are rapists.
Ban all Muslim immigration.
Why can't I call women fat pigs, slobs and disgusting animals?
The extreme remarks rolled on.
In response, the media abandoned objectivity.
Journalists inserted themselves into the story, often challenging Trump directly and darkly warning readers to oppose him.
The New York Times and Washington Post broke tradition and used the words lie and liar on their splash to describe a presidential candidate.
The media used any opportunity to present Trump in a negative light.
MSNBC, despite its supposed rule against broadcasting falsehoods, reported salacious stories casting Trump as a Russian intelligence asset, of course referring to Russiagate, which Rachel Maddow and MSNBC et al all enthusiastically reported, even though it's been proven to be untrue since then.
The press peered itself against the candidate.
While popular on cable television, this approach is very much divorced from journalism that seeks to understand why voters were attracted to his message on trade, his unorthodox opposition to foreign military interventions, or the anger he mobilized against establishment elites.
For his part, Trump embraced this approach, even encouraging his supporters to jeer the assembled journalists at his campaign rallies.
I think the political press is among the most dishonest people that I've ever met, Trump would say, to be met with uproarous applause.
Undoubtedly, Trump's instincts around elitism, the establishment, neoliberal, globalist politics are pretty acute, astute and well observed.
The fact is, Trump cannot rise to prominence and ongoing success unless there is an appetite for Trump.
And a big part of that appetite, I believe, is the antipathy that the government, legacy media, corporatism, globalism are all collectively held in.
Whether or not you believe Trump has delivered on the promises and rhetoric that he's delivered in his previous presidential campaign and whether or not he will deliver on the rhetoric during this one, there is no question that the more the legacy media says that they hate Donald Trump, the more other people regard him as a populist icon and an anti-establishment figure.
What's baffling about all of this is there's never a time of atonement or a reckoning You never see Morning Joe and all them others sat around the table going, you know what, we should probably talk about the corruption within the Biden family.
We should probably talk about the lack of infrastructure in American life.
We should probably talk about why all of these people feel so unheard and angry.
Unless you're willing to campaign along the lines of, listen, we don't think Donald Trump's a very good political figure for these reasons, but we recognize that what he's tapped into in you is a kind of rage and anger and despair and a desire for a different type of America.
All they've ever really offered is, you slot must be racist.
And so much of it doesn't make sense when you find out that the Democrat Party has already lost the white working class vote of its own former supporters and is well on the way to losing non-white, black, Hispanic voters.
So who is it exactly that Donald Trump's being racist against?
One of the things he was most condemned for was the cages.
The children at the border in cages.
Then you learn Barack Obama built those cages.
Or the wall.
The typical Donald Trump policy.
One thing I know how to do is build.
All of that stuff and then you discover that Joe Biden is continuing to build the wall.
Similarly, the campaign pledges offered by Joe Biden.
I will make Saudi Arabia a pariah.
Make them in fact the pariah that they are.
Then he does a series of arms deals and energy deals with Saudi Arabia.
Their inability to address the problem leaves us open to the rhetoric, charisma and phenomena of Donald Trump.
They can never I don't want to directly address it, because to directly address it you would have to acknowledge the culpability of the system itself.
You'd have to say, this system doesn't work, it's probably at an end now, we're resisting that change because we won't let someone like Robert F. Kennedy even debate our current candidate.
We won't send Biden into the debate, Marianne Williamson.
And because of that, because Joe Biden is a symbol of the establishment, he is a symbol of that party, elderly, perhaps once efficient, but certainly not anymore.
Because of these failings, all they can do is sort of marvel at All decorum gone, the clashes drove record viewership and unprecedented profits for media corporations.
Meanwhile, the endless anti-Trump headlines in the liberal media only made his point about bias while also keeping him right at the heart of every story.
The profit dynamic was significant.
In 2015, Les Moonves, then chief of CBS News, was giddy with the Trump-driven audience.
Looking ahead, he told investors, the presidential election is right around the corner and thank God the rancor has already begun.
Moonves, on a subsequent call, claimed the Carnival-esque campaign fueled pretty phenomenal political advertising revenue.
Go Donald!
Keep getting out there, he chuckled, according to a recording.
So there's an obvious compromise there.
They're ultimately, like all for-profit organisations, the bottom line is the line that matters most.
At the moment, they can appeal to their audience by continually condemning Trump.
It seems to work.
But if it gets proven at some point that by amplifying Trump, by showing Trump, by finding the right line, what we'll do is we'll talk about Trump but we won't show his speeches.
If they can't continue this delicate dance around the issue of Trump, their model is doomed.
And perhaps with the rise of independent media anyway, their model is no longer effective.
What we're watching, I think, is a bunch of institutions falling apart, doubling down on hysteria and authoritarianism in order to resist what seems to me to be the inevitable decentralization of many of their models.
Let me know what you think in the chat.
The Washington Post and New Yorker enjoyed record circulation.
MSNBC and CNN also claimed unprecedented viewership, finally outflanking Fox News as each network competed for an audience hungry for Trump controversies, some of which, like the Steele dossier, were outright fabrications.
A story we've covered, the Clinton campaign funded lies that made it all the way onto legacy media shows and they've never really acknowledged that.
They certainly don't ever acknowledge it when they talk about lack of trust in the media or the rise in Trump's popularity.
Another one of the things they just don't cover.
The heightened political climate continues to benefit CNN, John Martin, head of Turner, told the Financial Times.
Even the New York Times boasted about its Trump bump.
Mark Thompson, then the Times' chief executive, celebrated a continued revenue spike well after the campaign ended, as coverage of exceptional news events, including the firing of James Comey, helped add 109,000 new digital customers.
Ultimately it's a business model that needs to alter and amend and it needs to exist in these type of spaces.
I believe that's why these kind of spaces are under significant attack because they represent the emergence of entirely new perspectives or old perspectives re-heard and it's an enormous threat to the media unless they can start penetrating these spaces.
But with Biden came the Trump slump.
The Washington Post lost nearly a third of its digital audience and last October announced large cutbacks to its workforce.
Viewership rates are down at all the major cable and television networks, with NBC and MSNBC just earlier this month reporting yet another round of layoffs.
When you consider that the Democrat Party essentially exiled RFK rather than have a candidate that could stand up against Trump, and wouldn't even let Bernie Sanders run as a candidate, preferring Hillary Clinton inexplicably, how do you imagine the legacy media, the propagandist arm of the same establishment interests, Feels when it comes to a decision between we're going to have to cut our own workforce and make less money with Biden in office or we can continue to contribute to this hysteria around Trump even knowing that potentially we increase his chances of being elected but also keep our advertising revenue and subs nice and high.
How do you think they might respond to that internally knowing what we know about their ethics?
No wonder then that the anti-Trump narrative is rearing its head again.
The Iowa coverage already points to what lies ahead as Trump is described as a psychopathic criminal.
That's extreme, isn't it?
Like, not just a criminal, not just a psychopath, but a psychopathic criminal.
The worst thing anyone can be.
And his entire base built on a cult of personality.
The media will again do battle in an attempt to prevent the former president from returning to the White House.
Paradoxically though, this is bound to help not hinder Trump's campaign.
In 2016, journalists were so distracted by the latest Trump tweet that they paid no heed to the electorate.
It's deep frustration at the establishment and it's longing for a change agent.
But such are the incentives and outlets are bound to overplay their hand again.
The professional and financial advantages are such that non-partisan journalism is forgotten.
The media will cast themselves as defenders of democracy and joust with Trump and his campaign, little realizing that their crusade may well lead him straight back into office.
I suppose the question we're left with is, is that exactly where they want him?
What an extraordinary time we live in where our trust in media is so low we can't even trust them in their own evident passion and enthusiasm when it comes to ultimately what matters most to them, ongoing profits.
When we know how their model is funded, when we know what their affiliations are when it comes to corporatism, when we saw during the pandemic period how they advocate and align in particular with the interest of the pharmaceutical
industry, which is why we want you to subscribe and watch our
"8% Excess Death in Children" video if you can, because I believe strongly the legacy media model is
finished.
They have no authenticity, they have no vitality, they have no real connection to the issues they talk about.
When you see Micah and Morning Joe and those various other pundits pontificating,
What I believe you're watching is the end of a particular type of institution that has no ideas left except the ongoing vilification of someone in the figure of Donald Trump who has harnessed a tide of anti-establishment zeal and they are completely at a loss as to how to oppose it because to oppose it would mean radically altering their entire model and everything that they advocate for.
But that's just what I think more important than any of that.
