We’ve spent 21 parts documenting how the bottom 90% are systematically extracted from:
• Healthcare monopolies charging you double what other countries pay (Parts 1-6)
• Housing financialization pricing you out of homeownership (Part 7)
• Student debt trapping you in economic servitude (Part 8)
• Employer-based insurance making you afraid to leave your job (Part 5, 9)
• Private prisons profiting from mass incarceration (Part 10)
• Military contractors extracting hundreds of billions annually (Part 11)
• Both political parties serving corporate donors over voters (Part 12)
• Tax codes rigged to favor wealth over work (Parts 17-19)
• Monopolies extracting wealth through market power (Part 20)
• Coordinated sabotage of public services to enable privatization (Part 21)
Every claim is backed by data. The companies are named. The profits are public record. The politicians taking money from these industries are identified. The coordination between think tanks, donors, and legislators is documented.
This isn’t hidden information. It’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s publicly available data that anyone can verify.
So here’s the question: Why don’t most people know this?
Why do people know the latest celebrity gossip, the newest TikTok drama, what Trump tweeted, what pronouns controversy happened this week—but they don’t know that UnitedHealth owns the pharmacy, the pharmacy benefit manager, and the insurance company, creating a vertically integrated monopoly that extracts billions from their healthcare?
Why do rural conservatives think cities are dangerous hellscapes when rural areas often have higher violent crime rates?
Why do people think “government doesn’t work” when the dysfunction is deliberately created by the same politicians who then propose privatization to their corporate donors?
The answer is simple, and it’s not a conspiracy theory:
The companies profiting from extraction own the media.
And media companies—following rational incentives to maximize profit, please advertisers, and protect parent company interests—manipulate viewers to keep them watching, divided, and distracted from the actual wealth extraction happening to them.
This is Part 22. Let me show you exactly how it works.
THE SIX CORPORATIONS THAT OWN ALMOST EVERYTHING YOU WATCH
In 1983, 50 companies controlled most American media—newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, movies.
By 2004, that number was down to 6 companies through mergers and acquisitions.
Today, six corporations still dominate:
1. Comcast (owns NBCUniversal, MSNBC, CNBC, USA Network, Bravo, Telemundo, Universal Pictures, theme parks, Peacock streaming)
2. Disney (owns ABC, ESPN, FX, National Geographic, 20th Century Studios, Marvel, Lucasfilm, Pixar, Hulu, Disney+)
3. Paramount Global (owns CBS, MTV, Nickelodeon, BET, Comedy Central, Paramount Pictures, Paramount+)
4. Fox Corporation (owns Fox News, Fox Business, Fox Broadcasting, local Fox stations)
5. Warner Bros. Discovery (owns CNN, HBO, Discovery Channel, TLC, HGTV, Warner Bros. studios, DC Comics, Max streaming)
6. Netflix (streaming original content, increasingly dominant)
Six companies. That’s it.
These six corporations produce most of what Americans watch on TV, see in movies, stream on their devices. They own the news networks, the entertainment channels, the streaming platforms, the movie studios.
And here’s the critical point: These same corporations:
• Profit from the monopoly systems we’ve exposed
• Donate millions to politicians in both parties
• Lobby for policies that enable extraction
• Have massive conflicts of interest in reporting on the systems that enrich them
Let me give you the most obvious example.
COMCAST: THE PERFECT CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Comcast is particularly egregious because it’s both a monopoly AND it owns major news networks.
What Comcast owns:
• Cable/internet monopoly in most of its service areas (Part 20 covered this)
• NBCUniversal (NBC broadcast network)
• MSNBC (cable news, leans progressive)
• CNBC (business news)
• Telemundo (Spanish-language network)
• Dozens of cable channels
• Universal Pictures
• Theme parks
What Comcast does as a cable/internet company:
• Charges monopoly prices (no competition in most areas)
• Has worst customer service in America
• Imposes data caps to extract more money
• Lobbies against net neutrality
• Lobbies against municipal broadband (public competition)
• Donates millions to politicians to maintain monopoly power
Now, here’s the conflict:
When MSNBC reports on cable monopolies, they’re reporting on their parent company.
When CNBC covers internet access policy, they’re covering their parent company’s business.
When NBC News covers media consolidation, they’re reporting on themselves.
When any Comcast-owned outlet covers political donations and lobbying, their parent company is one of the biggest donors and lobbyists.
Do you think MSNBC is going to do a hard-hitting investigative series on how Comcast’s cable monopoly extracts billions from Americans?
Do you think NBC News is going to aggressively investigate how Comcast lobbies Congress to prevent municipal broadband competition?
Do you think CNBC is going to examine how Comcast’s market power allows it to charge twice what internet costs in countries with actual competition?
No. Because their paychecks come from Comcast.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory. This is basic conflict of interest.
Example: In 2014, Comcast tried to merge with Time Warner Cable, which would have made them even more dominant. The merger eventually failed due to regulatory concerns, but during the process, MSNBC, NBC, and CNBC covered it—with kid gloves.
No aggressive investigation of why this monopoly expansion would hurt consumers. No deep dives into Comcast’s history of overcharging and terrible service. Just straightforward reporting that didn’t threaten the parent company.
Meanwhile, independent journalists and consumer advocacy groups were screaming about how bad the merger would be. But they don’t have TV networks.
Comcast does.
THE PATTERN: MEDIA WON’T INVESTIGATE PARENT COMPANY INTERESTS
This pattern repeats across all six corporations:
Disney:
• Lobbied for copyright extension (Mickey Mouse protection)
• Gets massive tax breaks for theme parks
• ABC News isn’t going to aggressively investigate Disney’s lobbying or labor practices
Fox Corporation:
• Rupert Murdoch owns it
• Fox News is explicit propaganda (more on this shortly)
• Fox Broadcasting won’t investigate Murdoch’s political influence
Warner Bros. Discovery:
• CNN covers politics extensively
• But doesn’t aggressively cover media consolidation or its parent company’s business practices
Paramount:
• CBS News is generally credible
• But won’t deeply investigate Paramount’s lobbying or corporate practices
This is structural. It’s not about individual journalists lacking integrity. It’s about corporate ownership creating conflicts of interest that make certain stories too dangerous to pursue.
THE INCENTIVE STRUCTURE: WHY MEDIA MANIPULATES YOU
Let’s be clear about what drives corporate media:
Profit.
Not “inform the public.” Not “hold the powerful accountable.” Not “serve democracy.”
Profit.
And profit comes from:
1. Advertising revenue (keep viewers watching to sell ads)
2. Keeping advertisers happy (don’t alienate companies paying for ads)
3. Keeping parent company happy (don’t damage corporate interests)
4. Access to politicians (stay friendly to get interviews)
5. Partisan capture (build loyal audience that won’t switch channels)
These incentives inevitably lead to manipulation. Not necessarily malicious manipulation, but rational manipulation to maximize profit within this incentive structure.
Here’s how it works:
INCENTIVE #1: KEEP VIEWERS WATCHING (THE OUTRAGE MACHINE)
More viewers = more advertising revenue.
How do you keep people watching?
Make them angry.
Angry people don’t change the channel. Angry people tune in every day to see what to be angry about next. Angry people forward clips to friends. Angry people engage.
So media—Fox especially, but MSNBC and CNN too—deliberately create outrage.
How?
1. Cherry-pick stories that confirm viewers’ biases and make them angry
2. Amplify extremes (find the most extreme example and present it as typical)
3. Use leading questions (“Should radical socialists be allowed to…”)
4. Omit context (show crime statistics without mentioning overall trends)
5. Create false equivalence (one party does X egregiously, other party did something vaguely similar once, “both sides!”)
6. Fearmonger constantly (immigrants, crime, socialism, fascism—whatever keeps your audience afraid)
This is deliberate. Producers know exactly what they’re doing.
Example: Fox News and the Migrant Caravan (October 2018)
In October 2018, a caravan of migrants from Central America was making its way toward the U.S. border. Fox News covered this obsessively:
• Multiple segments per hour
• Characterized it as an “invasion”
• Trump echoed Fox’s coverage, sent troops to the border
• Made it seem like the most important story in America
Then the midterm elections happened (November 6, 2018).
Immediately after the elections, Fox’s coverage of the caravan dropped by 99%.
The caravan didn’t disappear. It was still making its way north. But Fox stopped caring.
Why?
Because the political purpose—scaring voters before the midterms—was accomplished.
That’s not journalism. That’s manipulation.
And it works. Fox viewers genuinely believed there was an invasion at the border. They voted accordingly. Then Fox moved on to the next outrage.
INCENTIVE #2: DON’T ALIENATE ADVERTISERS
Cable news makes money from advertising. Lots of it.
Pharmaceutical companies are the biggest advertisers on cable news—over $5 billion per year across networks.
Think about that. $5+ billion per year from pharma companies.
Now, when cable news covers healthcare, do they aggressively investigate pharmaceutical company price gouging?
Do they call for banning pharmaceutical advertising (like most developed countries do)?
Do they point out that the U.S. is one of only two countries (with New Zealand) that allows direct-to-consumer pharma advertising?
No.
Because if they did, pharma companies would pull their ads. And pharma companies are the biggest revenue source.
This is why you see 10 drug commercials per hour on cable news. “Ask your doctor about…” ads for conditions you didn’t know existed.
And this is why cable news doesn’t aggressively investigate pharmaceutical profiteering.
Same pattern with other major advertisers:
• Auto companies (don’t investigate auto industry problems)
• Insurance companies (don’t deeply examine insurance extraction)
• Fossil fuel companies (don’t aggressively cover climate change)
• Financial companies (don’t investigate Wall Street fraud)
Follow the money. Always.
INCENTIVE #3: PROTECT PARENT COMPANY INTERESTS
We already covered Comcast owning MSNBC/NBC/CNBC.
But it’s broader than that.
All six media corporations have business interests beyond media:
• Comcast: Cable/internet monopoly
• Disney: Theme parks, merchandise, streaming
• Paramount: Streaming, movie theaters
• Fox: Sports betting (Fox Bet), international properties
• Warner Bros. Discovery: Streaming, international properties
• Netflix: Global streaming, international content
These corporations lobby Congress on:
• Copyright law
• Tax policy
• Trade policy
• Antitrust enforcement (or lack thereof)
• Labor law
• Environmental regulations
Do you think their news divisions are going to aggressively investigate those lobbying efforts?
Do you think ABC News is going to do a deep dive on how Disney lobbied for copyright extensions that benefit Disney?
Do you think CNN is going to investigate how Warner Bros. Discovery avoids taxes through offshore subsidiaries?
No. Because that would damage the parent company.
The journalists might want to. But the corporate structure won’t allow it.
INCENTIVE #4: MAINTAIN ACCESS TO POLITICIANS
Political journalism relies on access. Interviews with presidents, senators, governors, cabinet officials drive ratings.
If you aggressively investigate and criticize politicians, they stop giving you access.
So a perverse dynamic develops: journalists go easy on politicians to maintain access, which allows them to… ask softball questions in interviews that don’t reveal anything important.
This is called “access journalism,” and it’s rampant.
Example:
Bob Woodward, legendary Watergate journalist, has written books about recent presidents. To get access, he agrees not to publish quotes until after the book comes out. This means:
• Trump tells Woodward in February 2020 that COVID is “deadly stuff,” worse than flu
• Woodward doesn’t publish this until his book comes out in September 2020
• Thousands die in the interim
• Woodward protected his access instead of informing the public immediately
That’s access journalism. Protect the relationship with the powerful, don’t serve the public interest.
It happens constantly. Political journalists are afraid to ask hard questions or pursue damaging stories because they’ll lose access.
INCENTIVE #5: BUILD PARTISAN LOYAL AUDIENCE
Here’s the final piece of the incentive puzzle:
Cable news has figured out that partisan audiences are loyal audiences.
If you’re a Fox viewer, you’re not switching to MSNBC. You’re locked in. You trust Fox, you distrust everyone else. Fox gives you news that confirms what you already believe, makes you feel smart and informed, tells you the other side is wrong/stupid/evil.
Same with MSNBC viewers (though less extreme). If you’re watching Rachel Maddow, you’re not switching to Fox. You trust MSNBC, you think Fox is propaganda, MSNBC confirms your priors.
This is incredibly valuable to media companies:
Loyal viewers = consistent ratings = predictable ad revenue.
So media companies actively cultivate partisan loyalty. They don’t want to inform you objectively. They want to make you loyal to their brand.
How?
• Tell you what you want to hear
• Confirm your biases
• Make the other side seem crazy/evil
• Create an us-vs-them dynamic where “we” are right and “they” are destroying America
This keeps you coming back. Every night. For years.
And you’ll defend the network if anyone criticizes it, because it’s part of your identity now.
That’s the goal. Not inform you. Capture you.
FOX NEWS: DELIBERATE PROPAGANDA
Now let’s talk about Fox News specifically, because Fox is in a category by itself.
Fox isn’t just biased. Fox isn’t just sensationalized. Fox is deliberate propaganda, and we know this because the evidence is public.
The Dominion Lawsuit: Fox Knew It Was Lying
In 2020, Trump lost the election to Biden. Trump and his allies claimed the election was stolen, specifically blaming Dominion Voting Systems machines for flipping votes.
This was false. Completely, demonstrably false. Every audit, recount, and investigation confirmed Biden won legitimately.
Dominion sued Fox News for defamation, arguing that Fox knowingly broadcast false claims that damaged Dominion’s reputation and business.
During discovery (the legal process where both sides share evidence), Dominion obtained internal Fox emails, texts, and depositions.
What they revealed was damning:
1. Fox executives and hosts KNEW the election fraud claims were false
• Tucker Carlson (text): “Sidney Powell is lying” about Dominion
• Rupert Murdoch (deposition): Admitted Fox hosts endorsed stolen election lies, said he could have stopped them but didn’t
• Internal emails showed producers fact-checking the claims, finding them false, then airing them anyway
2. Fox aired the lies anyway because they were losing viewers
• After Fox correctly called Arizona for Biden on election night, MAGA viewers fled to Newsmax and OANN
• Fox’s ratings dropped
• Executives explicitly discussed (in texts and emails) that they needed to win back the MAGA audience
• So Fox started airing election fraud claims they knew were false
3. Fox settled for $787.5 million
• Largest media defamation settlement in history
• Fox settled right before trial to avoid more damaging revelations
• Still didn’t admit wrongdoing on-air
• Still hasn’t corrected the false claims to viewers
Let me be clear about what this means:
Fox News executives and hosts knew Trump’s election fraud claims were lies. They aired those lies anyway to keep their audience. They profited from lying to viewers. And when they got caught, they paid three-quarters of a billion dollars rather than admit it publicly.
That’s not bias. That’s not sensationalism. That’s deliberate, cynical manipulation for profit.
Roger Ailes and the Deliberate Creation of Right-Wing Propaganda
Fox News didn’t become propaganda by accident. It was designed that way from the beginning.
Roger Ailes ran Fox News from its launch in 1996 until 2016 (when he was forced out for serial sexual harassment).
In 1970, Ailes worked in the Nixon White House. He wrote a memo titled “A Plan for Putting the GOP on TV News.”
The plan: Create a Republican-controlled TV network to counter mainstream media and protect Republican presidents from accountability.
It took 25 years, but Ailes did it. Fox News launched in 1996 with Rupert Murdoch’s money and Ailes’s vision.
Ailes’s strategy:
• Hire attractive women (he was a serial sexual harasser)
• Use “Fair and Balanced” branding while being completely partisan
• Repeat Republican talking points uncritically
• Attack Democrats relentlessly
• Make viewers angry and afraid (fear = loyalty = ratings)
• Create alternate reality where Republicans are always right, Democrats always wrong
This was the plan from day one.
Not “we’re doing news that happens to lean conservative.”
It was “we’re creating propaganda and calling it news.”
And it worked. Fox News became the most-watched cable news network. It shaped Republican politics. It made Ailes and Murdoch billions.
How Fox Manipulates: The Playbook
Fox’s manipulation follows consistent patterns:
1. Cherry-pick stories that make conservatives angry
• Crime in Democratic cities (ignore crime in Republican areas)
• Immigration (constant “invasion” rhetoric)
• “Woke” culture (find most extreme example, present as typical)
• Government waste (ignore corporate welfare)
2. Use loaded language
• “Democrat Party” (not Democratic Party—subtle insult)
• “Radical left” (mainstream Democrats)
• “Socialist” (for any government program)
• “Elites” (anyone educated who disagrees)
• “Real America” (conservative, white, rural)
3. Omit context constantly
• Show crime stats without mentioning overall trends (crime has fallen dramatically since 1990s)
• Show spending without mentioning what it’s for or comparing to other countries
• Show isolated incidents and imply they’re common
4. Create false equivalence
• Democrats want universal healthcare (like every other developed country has)
• Republicans want to eliminate healthcare protections for pre-existing conditions
• Fox: “Both sides have extreme positions on healthcare”
5. Fearmonger relentlessly
• Immigrants are invading
• Cities are hellscapes
• Socialism is coming
• They’re indoctrinating your children
• They’re taking your guns
• They’re destroying America
6. When proven wrong, never correct
• Fox rarely issues corrections
• When they do, it’s buried and quiet
• Viewers never learn they were lied to
• The false impression remains
The Result: Fox Viewers Are Measurably More Misinformed
Studies consistently show:
• Fox News viewers are more misinformed than people who watch no news at all
• Fox viewers believe things that are factually false at higher rates than other news consumers
• Fox viewers vastly overestimate crime rates, immigration numbers, and government spending on social programs
• Fox viewers underestimate climate change evidence, COVID severity, and wealth inequality
This isn’t just bias. This is creation of an alternate reality.
Examples of what Fox viewers believe at higher rates than reality:
• 2020 election was stolen (false)
• COVID vaccines are dangerous (false)
• Climate change is a hoax (false)
• Crime is at all-time highs (false—crime is down significantly since 1990s)
• Immigrants increase crime (false—immigrants commit crimes at lower rates)
• Tax cuts pay for themselves (false—never happened)
Fox has created an alternate information ecosystem where facts that contradict the narrative just don’t exist.
MSNBC and CNN: Biased, Sensationalized, But Not the Same
Let me be clear: MSNBC and CNN are problematic too.
MSNBC:
• Clearly leans progressive/Democratic
• Rachel Maddow spent 2017-2019 pushing Russia conspiracy theories that didn’t pan out as dramatically as she suggested
• Creates echo chamber for liberal viewers
• Sensationalizes and creates outrage (though less than Fox)
• Profits from division
CNN:
• Obsessed with conflict and drama
• Brings on paid partisan consultants to yell at each other, calls it “debate”
• Gave Trump billions in free coverage in 2016 (aired his rallies live, unedited)
• Jeff Zucker (former CNN president) said covering Trump was good for ratings
• Treats politics as sports/entertainment
Both networks are biased, sensationalized, and prioritize ratings over informing viewers.
But here’s the critical difference:
MSNBC and CNN operate in shared reality. Fox does not.
MSNBC and CNN:
• Report that Biden won 2020 election legitimately (true)
• Report that COVID vaccines are safe and effective (true)
• Report that climate change is real and human-caused (true)
• May exaggerate or be selective, but don’t create alternate facts
Fox News:
• Pushed “stolen election” despite zero evidence (false)
• Minimized COVID, pushed unproven treatments, stoked vaccine hesitancy (dangerous)
• Denies/minimizes climate change despite scientific consensus (false)
• Creates alternate reality where these false claims are treated as legitimate
That’s the difference. MSNBC might be biased in story selection and framing. Fox lies about basic facts.
This isn’t “both sides are equally bad.” One side is significantly more dishonest.
CASE STUDY: THE FEAR FACTORY – HOW MEDIA MANUFACTURES FEAR OF CITIES
Here’s a perfect example of media manipulation that serves political and economic purposes:
If you live in rural America and watch Fox News, you think cities are war zones.
• Chicago is a hellscape
• Portland burned to the ground
• New York is overrun with crime
• San Francisco is covered in needles and feces
• Philadelphia is anarchy
This perception is deliberately manufactured. And it’s false.
The Reality vs. The Perception:
Crime data from FBI and CDC:
• Violent crime per capita is often HIGHER in rural areas than cities
• Domestic violence is significantly higher in rural areas
• Alcohol-related deaths higher in rural areas
• Opioid crisis hit rural America hardest
• Accidental death rate (cars, farming equipment) much higher in rural areas
• Life expectancy is LOWER in rural areas than urban areas
Specific comparisons:
• Murder rate in rural Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama > murder rate in NYC
• You’re statistically less likely to die in most cities than in rural areas (accounting for all causes of death)
Cities do have more property crime (theft, burglary). But the overall picture is more nuanced than “cities dangerous, rural areas safe.”
But Fox News coverage creates opposite impression:
How They Do It:
1. Obsessively cover crime in Democratic cities
• Chicago violence (constantly)
• Every shooting in Baltimore
• Every incident in Portland
• Ignore that crime rates have fallen dramatically since 1990s
• Ignore that many rural areas have similar or higher murder rates
2. Focus on Black and Latino perpetrators
• This activates racial fear among white viewers
• “Urban” becomes code for “Black”
• Message: Cities = diverse = dangerous
• Implication: Stay in homogenous rural area where you’re “safe”
3. Ignore context completely
• Crime is down overall
• Violence is concentrated in specific neighborhoods, not entire cities
• Most crime is between people who know each other, not random
• Chicago has 2.7 million people; most neighborhoods are perfectly safe
4. Amplify protests and unrest
• 2020 Portland protests: Fox showed same footage for months
• Made it seem like entire city was burning
• Reality: Protests confined to a few blocks, 99% of Portland was normal
• But rural viewers thought the whole city was destroyed
Why They Do This:
This manufactured fear serves multiple purposes:
1. Keeps rural voters afraid of urban diversity
• If cities are scary, you won’t move there
• You won’t experience urban diversity firsthand
• You won’t understand why collective solutions (transit, public services) work
• You’ll stay in homogenous rural areas with less government presence
2. Justifies “tough on crime” policies
• “Crime is out of control” → “We need more cops, more prisons, tougher sentences”
• Politicians who take prison industry money push this narrative (Part 10)
• Ignores that mass incarceration doesn’t reduce crime effectively
3. Discredits “liberal” cities and Democratic policies
• “Liberal cities are hellholes”
• “Democratic policies cause crime”
• Ignores that crime fell most in liberal cities (NYC under Democratic mayors)
• Ignores that many rural conservative areas have higher violence
4. Distracts from rural economic decline
While you’re afraid of Chicago crime you’ve never experienced, you don’t notice:
• Your rural hospital closed (Part 1)
• Your rural school is being defunded (Part 21)
• Your rural broadband is monopolized and overpriced (Part 20)
• Your community was deliberately targeted by Purdue Pharma, causing the opioid epidemic
• Your local factory closed and moved overseas
The fear keeps rural voters supporting politicians who hurt them economically while promising to protect them from “dangerous urban liberals.”
The Personal Experience Factor:
Here’s what’s telling: People who actually live in cities know this narrative is false.
When you live in a city:
• You realize most neighborhoods are safe
• You meet diverse people and they’re just… people
• You use public transit and it works
• You see that collective solutions are necessary and functional
• The fear dissipates because you’re living reality, not watching Fox’s version
But rural people who never visit cities only have the media narrative. And Fox deliberately cultivates fear to keep them from experiencing urban reality.
Because if rural conservatives actually visited cities, used public transit, interacted with diverse communities, they might realize:
• Cities aren’t dangerous hellscapes
• Diversity isn’t scary
• Public services can work
• Collective solutions are sometimes necessary
• Their economic interests align with urban workers, not with the corporations extracting from both
And that realization would threaten the entire extraction system.
So Fox keeps them afraid.
WHAT CORPORATE MEDIA WON’T COVER
Let’s catalog what you rarely see on corporate TV news:
Stories That Threaten Parent Companies:
• Media consolidation (they ARE the consolidation)
• Cable monopolies (Comcast owns NBC/MSNBC)
• Copyright abuse (Disney lobbies for eternal copyright)
• Tax avoidance by media companies (all six use offshore subsidiaries)
• Labor issues at parent companies (Disney, Amazon treat workers poorly)
Stories That Threaten Major Advertisers:
• Pharmaceutical company profiteering (pharma is biggest cable news advertiser)
• Auto industry problems (auto companies advertise heavily)
• Fossil fuel subsidies and climate crisis (oil companies advertise)
• Insurance industry extraction (insurance companies advertise)
Stories That Threaten Access to Politicians:
• Deep investigation of both parties’ corruption
• Politicians taking bribes from industries
• Regulatory capture at agencies
• Revolving door between government and industry
Stories That Challenge Fundamental Systems:
• Wealth extraction mechanisms (this entire series)
• Monopoly power and how to break it up
• How both parties serve corporate interests
• Alternative economic systems that work in other countries
Stories About Class and Wealth:
• Media obsesses over culture war issues (abortion, guns, pronouns, bathrooms)
• Media rarely covers wealth extraction, monopolies, or class issues
• When they do, it’s superficial (inequality exists, how sad) without examining mechanisms or solutions
Why?
Because covering these stories threatens:
• Corporate profits
• Advertiser relationships
• Political access
• The fundamental systems that enrich media companies
Media keeps you fighting about cultural issues (abortion, guns, pronouns, immigration) while ignoring economic extraction.
And that’s by design.
The bottom 90% have unified economic interests. But if media can keep us divided by race, religion, geography, and culture war issues, we won’t unite to demand change.
THE ALGORITHMIC RADICALIZATION PIPELINE
We can’t discuss media without addressing social media and algorithms.
YouTube, Facebook, Twitter/X, TikTok—these platforms have become major news sources, especially for younger people.
And their algorithms are designed to radicalize users.
Not as a bug. As a feature.
How Algorithmic Radicalization Works:
1. You watch a video (let’s say Jordan Peterson or Joe Rogan)
2. Algorithm recommends similar content, but slightly more extreme
3. You watch that (maybe Ben Shapiro or Steven Crowder)
4. Algorithm recommends more extreme content
5. You watch that (maybe Alex Jones or white nationalist content)
6. Before you know it, you’re deep in conspiracy theories and extremism
This isn’t accidental. The algorithm learns that:
• Extreme content gets more engagement
• Outraged users watch longer
• Longer watch time = more ads = more revenue
So the algorithm serves progressively more extreme content to keep you watching.
YouTube’s Radicalization Pipeline:
Former YouTube engineers have testified that the recommendation algorithm actively radicalizes users.
Study by Data & Society Research Institute:
• Tracked users starting with mainstream conservative content
• Within weeks, recommendations led to white nationalist channels
• Algorithm prioritizes watch time, and extreme content keeps people watching longer
Facebook’s Algorithm Amplifies Division:
The Facebook whistleblower (Frances Haugen, former Facebook employee) revealed:
• Facebook knew its algorithm amplified divisive, inflammatory content
• Facebook knew this was harming democracy and mental health
• Facebook chose profit over safety (engagement = ads = money)
• Internal documents called it “meaningful social interaction” (MSI)—but it actually meant conflict and outrage
TikTok’s Algorithm:
• Most sophisticated recommendation algorithm
• Chinese-owned (ByteDance)
• Different concerns: surveillance, influence, data collection
• Also prioritizes engagement = extreme content rises
The Result:
Social media platforms profit from radicalization. The more extreme your views, the more you engage, the more ads they serve, the more money they make.
And because these platforms have become primary news sources for millions, especially young people, they’re actively making the population more extreme and divided.
THE REVOLVING DOOR: MEDIA AND POLITICS ARE THE SAME PEOPLE
Here’s another problem: The line between media and politics is completely blurred.
Politicians become media personalities. Media personalities become politicians or political operatives.
Examples:
Media → Politics:
• Donald Trump (reality TV star → President)
• Sean Duffy (MTV’s Real World → Congressman → Fox News → Trump administration)
• JD Vance (venture capitalist, right-wing media figure → Senator → VP candidate)
Politics → Media:
• George Stephanopoulos (Clinton advisor → ABC News chief anchor)
• Nicolle Wallace (Bush White House communications director → MSNBC host)
• Jen Psaki (Biden White House press secretary → MSNBC host)
• Kayleigh McEnany (Trump press secretary → Fox News)
• Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Trump press secretary → Fox contributor → Arkansas governor)
• Chris Christie (NJ Governor → ABC News contributor → running for president)
This creates massive conflicts of interest:
When Jen Psaki covers Biden administration on MSNBC, she’s covering her former colleagues and boss. Will she be critical? Or will she protect relationships?
When Nicolle Wallace covers Republican politics, she’s covering the party she worked for. Does she have insider perspective, or is she settling scores?
When George Stephanopoulos interviews Democrats, is he a journalist or is he a former Democratic operative doing friendly interviews?
The answer: Both. And that’s the problem.
Media hires politicians as “analysts” and “contributors” because they have name recognition and inside knowledge. But they’re not journalists. They’re partisan operators with conflicts of interest.
And media treats this as normal.
THINK TANK “EXPERTS” ARE PAID PROPAGANDISTS
Here’s another media manipulation tactic:
Cable news constantly brings on “experts” from think tanks to provide “analysis.”
These think tanks sound official and neutral:
• Heritage Foundation
• American Enterprise Institute
• Cato Institute
• Brookings Institution
• Center for American Progress
But many are explicitly partisan and funded by corporations and billionaires to push specific policy agendas.
Heritage Foundation:
• Conservative think tank
• Funded by corporations and wealthy donors
• Pushes privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for wealthy
• Part 21 documented their role in coordinating sabotage of public services
When Heritage “fellow” appears on Fox News or CNN and says “government is inefficient” or “we need to privatize Social Security,” they’re not a neutral expert. They’re paid to say that.
But media presents them as objective analysts.
Cato Institute:
• Libertarian think tank
• Founded and funded by Koch brothers
• Opposes all government programs
• Pushes climate change denial
When Cato “scholar” appears on news and says “carbon tax is bad policy” or “Social Security is unsustainable,” they’re representing Koch interests, not neutral analysis.
But media doesn’t disclose this.
Same with all think tanks:
• They’re funded by someone
• That someone has policy preferences
• Think tank fellow’s job is to advance those preferences
• Media treats them as neutral experts
The solution: Media should disclose funding sources when bringing on think tank representatives.
“Joining us now is John Smith from Heritage Foundation, which is funded by fossil fuel companies and opposes environmental regulations, to discuss climate policy.”
But they don’t do that. Because media is part of the same ecosystem. They all scratch each other’s backs.
THE LOCAL NEWS COLLAPSE: NO ONE LEFT TO INVESTIGATE LOCAL CORRUPTION
While we’ve focused on national media, local news has collapsed. And this matters enormously.
The Numbers:
• 2,500+ newspapers have closed since 2005
• 200+ counties have no local newspaper at all
• 1,300 communities have lost local news coverage entirely
• Newsroom employment down 50% since 2008
What replaced local newspapers:
1. Sinclair Broadcast Group bought 193 TV stations in 89 markets
Sinclair forces all local stations to air identical right-wing commentary, even in liberal areas:
• “Terrorism Alert Desk” segments (fearmongering)
• Boris Epshteyn commentary (Trump advisor given mandatory airtime on all stations)
• Scripted editorials attacking “biased media”
In 2018, a video went viral showing dozens of Sinclair anchors reading the exact same script word-for-word across all markets. This is Orwellian—local anchors, trusted community figures, forced to parrot corporate propaganda.
2. Alden Global Capital (vulture hedge fund) bought newspapers, gutted newsrooms, extracted profits
Alden’s business model:
• Buy struggling newspaper
• Fire most journalists
• Cut costs to bone
• Extract maximum profit
• Let quality deteriorate
• Eventually sell or close
This is private equity looting applied to journalism (Part 17 covered PE looting in other sectors).
3. Gannett consolidated local papers into cookie-cutter operations
National stories dominate. Local coverage minimal. Cost-cutting prioritized over journalism.
What’s Lost:
Without local news, there’s no one to investigate:
• Local government corruption (who covers city council meetings now?)
• School board decisions
• Zoning and development deals
• Police misconduct
• Local hospital chains and healthcare
• Local monopolies and business practices
• Environmental violations
• Local political campaigns and candidates
National media doesn’t cover this. Local news used to. Now it’s mostly gone.
Result: Local corruption goes unchecked. Citizens are uninformed about local issues. Democracy at the local level breaks down.
NPR AND PBS: PROOF PUBLIC MEDIA WORKS (BUT DELIBERATELY STARVED)
Here’s the thing: We have proof that publicly funded media works.
NPR (National Public Radio) and PBS (Public Broadcasting Service):
• High-quality journalism
• In-depth coverage
• No commercial pressure (minimal advertising)
• Trusted by audiences across political spectrum
• Significantly more trusted than cable news
The Model:
• Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) receives ~$450 million/year in federal funding
• CPB distributes funding to NPR, PBS, and local public stations
• Public funding represents ~15% of public broadcasting budgets
• Rest comes from donations, grants, corporate sponsorships (with disclosure)
How This Changes Incentives:
Because NPR/PBS don’t depend primarily on advertising:
• They can do long-form investigative journalism
• They can cover stories that don’t generate clicks/ratings
• They can criticize politicians without losing access (less dependent on access)
• They can cover corporate wrongdoing without alienating advertisers
NPR and PBS aren’t perfect. They have their own biases (institutional, centrist). But they’re significantly better than corporate cable news because the incentive structure is different.
The International Comparison:
Other developed countries fund public media much more generously:
• BBC (UK): £3.8 billion/year (~$5 billion) from TV license fees
• CBC (Canada): $1.4 billion/year from government
• ABC (Australia): $1.2 billion/year from government
US public broadcasting per capita: ~$1.35/person/year
UK BBC per capita: ~$75/person/year
We underfund public media by a factor of 50+ compared to other developed countries.
Why?
Because well-funded, independent public media would compete with corporate media. And corporate media companies lobby against CPB funding increases.
Also, Republicans regularly propose eliminating CPB funding entirely:
• Trump proposed eliminating it (Congress rejected)
• Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups consistently call for defunding
• Claim NPR/PBS have “liberal bias”
Studies show NPR/PBS are actually centrist/balanced, but conservatives perceive fact-based reporting as “liberal” when one party lies more than the other (asymmetric politics problem discussed earlier).
The Solution:
Increase CPB funding dramatically. Match UK’s per capita spending: $25 billion/year instead of $450 million.
This would allow:
• Expansion of NPR/PBS coverage
• More local public radio/TV stations
• Better journalist pay (compete with corporate media)
• More investigative journalism
• International bureaus
• Less dependence on corporate sponsorships
Public media works. We just refuse to fund it adequately because corporate media doesn’t want the competition.
ENTERTAINMENT AS PROPAGANDA: THE SUBTLE NORMALIZATION
We need to briefly address entertainment media, not just news.
Movies and TV shows shape how we view the world, often more powerfully than news because we don’t have our guard up.
What Gets Normalized in Entertainment:
1. Military/War
The Pentagon reviews and influences scripts for movies/TV shows that want military cooperation (equipment, locations, personnel).
In exchange, Pentagon gets to shape how military is portrayed.
Result: Military is almost always heroic, wars are justified, critics are wrong.
Movies like Top Gun, Act of Valor, countless others—Pentagon shaped those scripts.
This is soft propaganda. Part 11 covered military spending extraction. Hollywood helps justify it.
2. Police (“Copaganda”)
Law & Order, CSI, Blue Bloods, hundreds of cop shows portray police as:
• Always the good guys
• Solving crimes effectively
• Protecting communities
• Occasionally a bad apple, but system is good
Reality:
• Police solve only ~50% of violent crimes, ~20% of property crimes
• Police misconduct is systemic, not individual bad apples
• Mass incarceration doesn’t reduce crime effectively (Part 10 covered this)
But TV shows normalize aggressive policing and make viewers trust police despite evidence of systemic problems.
3. Wealth and Billionaires
Marvel movies: Tony Stark (Iron Man) is a billionaire hero
Batman: Billionaire hero
Countless movies: Rich people are smart, successful, aspirational
When was the last time you saw a movie where a billionaire was the villain? (Besides a cartoon villain?)
Reality: Billionaires extract wealth, avoid taxes, buy politicians, rig the system.
But Hollywood (owned by billionaires) presents billionaires as heroes.
4. American Exceptionalism
Most American movies and TV shows assume:
• America is the good guy
• Our wars are justified
• Our system is best (even with flaws)
• Other countries are backwards/oppressive/need us
This isn’t overt propaganda (usually). It’s subtle framing that shapes worldview.
I’m not saying entertainment should be politically correct or push a specific message. I’m saying we should be aware that entertainment media, owned by the same six corporations, shapes perceptions in ways that serve corporate interests.
THE DECLINE OF INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM
One final point: Investigative journalism is dying.
Real investigative journalism—the kind that takes months, requires legal support, exposes powerful wrongdoing—is expensive and doesn’t generate clicks.
Corporate media has cut investigative teams:
• Newspapers that used to have investigative units → laid off
• TV stations that used to have investigative reporters → gone
• Deep dives that take months → “not profitable”
Who does investigative journalism now?
• ProPublica (nonprofit)
• The Marshall Project (nonprofit)
• The Intercept (funded by billionaire, but editorially independent)
• Some remaining newspaper teams (NYT, WaPo, WSJ still have some)
• Independent journalists on Substack/YouTube
But nowhere near the scale we used to have.
Historic examples of investigative journalism:
• Pentagon Papers (exposed Vietnam War lies)
• Watergate (brought down Nixon)
• Enron (exposed corporate fraud)
• Catholic Church sex abuse (decades of cover-up)
These took months or years of investigation, teams of reporters, legal support, institutional backing.
Could they happen today? Maybe. But it’s much harder.
Corporate media would rather do cheap content:
• Talking heads yelling at each other
• Coverage of Trump’s latest tweet
• Crime stories from police press releases
• Content that generates rage-clicks
Investigative journalism is expensive and often attacks powerful interests (including advertisers and parent companies).
So it’s dying.
And without it, corruption goes unchecked.
THE INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON: HOW OTHER COUNTRIES DO MEDIA
Let’s look at how other developed democracies structure media:
BBC (United Kingdom):
• Public broadcaster, funded by TV license fee (~$5 billion/year)
• Editorially independent from government (by charter)
• Required to be impartial
• Covers government critically, even the government that funds it
• Trusted by public across political spectrum
• Competes with private media (Sky News, etc.)
Strengths:
• Well-funded public media provides high-quality journalism
• Editorial independence protects from government propaganda
• Impartiality requirements enforce some balance
Weaknesses:
• Government still appoints board of directors (some political influence)
• Impartiality can mean false balance (“both sides” even when one is lying)
• Recent conservative governments have threatened BBC funding
CBC (Canada):
• Public broadcaster, government funded ($1.4 billion/year)
• Covers Canadian politics aggressively
• Competes with private media (CTV, Global)
• Subject to criticism from both left and right (sign it’s balanced)
Nordic Countries:
• Strong public broadcasting in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland
• High media trust
• Less partisan than US media
• Well-funded, independent
Germany:
• Public broadcasters (ARD, ZDF)
• Funded by household fees
• Strong regional coverage
• Competes with private media
What’s Different in the US:
• Public broadcasting deliberately underfunded
• Private media completely dominates
• No balance requirements (post-Fairness Doctrine)
• Partisan media is normalized
• Corporate consolidation went further than most countries
• News is treated as profit center, not public service
We’re an outlier. And not in a good way.
THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: HOW WE GOT HERE
Brief history lesson:
1949-1987: The Fairness Doctrine
FCC (Federal Communications Commission) rule requiring broadcast license holders to:
1. Present controversial issues of public importance
2. Present contrasting viewpoints on those issues
Didn’t require “equal time,” just that both sides get aired.
Applied only to broadcast TV/radio (using public airwaves, not cable).
Why It Existed:
Public airwaves are limited resource, owned by public. Broadcast licenses are a privilege. In exchange, broadcasters had to serve the public interest.
1987: Reagan’s FCC Eliminated It
Claimed:
• Violated First Amendment (free speech)
• “Marketplace of ideas” would self-regulate
• More media outlets = no need for fairness requirement
What Happened After:
• Rush Limbaugh launched national radio show in 1988 (right after Fairness Doctrine ended)
• Talk radio became overwhelmingly conservative
• Fox News launched in 1996
• MSNBC went hard-left in response
• Partisan cable news became the norm
• No requirement for balance, no penalty for propaganda
Could We Bring It Back?
Legally: Maybe. Constitutional questions.
But it would only apply to broadcast TV/radio (public airwaves). Cable news (Fox, CNN, MSNBC) doesn’t use public airwaves, so Fairness Doctrine wouldn’t apply.
Would still help to require ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox Broadcasting to provide balanced coverage.
Why It Won’t Come Back:
• Media companies lobby against it
• Politicians don’t want balanced coverage—they want friendly coverage from their team’s network
• First Amendment concerns (though these can be addressed)
• Republicans would oppose (benefits Fox, talk radio)
• Democrats weakly support but don’t prioritize
Still, worth considering as part of solution.
THE SOLUTIONS: CHANGING THE INCENTIVE STRUCTURE
Okay, we’ve documented the problem. What do we do about it?
The key insight: You can’t fix media manipulation by replacing people. You have to change the incentive structure.
As long as media companies:
• Maximize profit over public interest
• Depend on advertising
• Protect parent company interests
• Maintain access to politicians
• Cultivate partisan audiences
They will continue to manipulate viewers.
So we need to change those incentives.
IMMEDIATE REFORMS:
1. Fund CPB Properly
Increase Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding from $450 million to $25+ billion (matching UK per capita).
This allows:
• NPR/PBS expansion
• More local public stations
• Better journalist pay
• Investigative journalism funding
• Less dependence on corporate sponsorships
This creates alternative to corporate media with different incentive structure.
2. Break Up Media Monopolies
Use antitrust enforcement to:
• Break up Comcast (separate cable/internet from content)
• Prevent further media mergers
• Force divestiture of vertically integrated companies
No company should own both distribution (cable/internet) and content (networks/studios). That’s the Comcast problem.
3. Require Disclosure
When media brings on think tank “experts,” require disclosure of funding sources:
“Joining us now is John Smith from Heritage Foundation, which is funded by fossil fuel companies, pharmaceutical companies, and opposes environmental and healthcare regulations.”
Transparency doesn’t solve the problem, but it helps viewers understand bias.
4. Regulate Social Media Algorithms
• Require algorithm transparency (how do recommendations work?)
• Ban microtargeting for political advertising
• Hold platforms accountable for misinformation (with First Amendment protections)
• Break up Facebook/Google monopolies
This is constitutionally tricky but necessary.
5. Support Local Journalism
• Tax credits for local news subscriptions
• Government advertising in local papers (instead of just Facebook/Google)
• Nonprofit news organizations (tax-deductible donations)
• Ban vulture funds like Alden Global Capital from buying newspapers just to extract and destroy
6. Restore Fairness Doctrine (for Broadcast)
Require ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox Broadcasting to provide balanced coverage of controversial issues.
Won’t fix cable news, but helps.
7. Ban Revolving Door
Politicians and political operatives shouldn’t be able to work as “journalists” immediately after leaving office/campaigns.
5-year cooling-off period before working in media.
Similarly, journalists shouldn’t be able to join administrations immediately.
This reduces conflicts of interest.
STRUCTURAL REFORMS:
1. Constitutional Protection for Public Media
Guarantee CPB funding in Constitution so it can’t be eliminated by partisan Congress.
Public media is essential to democracy. Should be protected like courts, elections.
2. Ban Media Ownership by Monopolies
If you own a monopoly in one industry (cable/internet), you can’t own media companies.
Force Comcast to choose: Own the cable network OR own NBC/MSNBC. Not both.
3. Journalism Jobs Program
Government-funded but editorially independent journalism:
• Cover local government, state government, federal government
• Distributed geographically (not just DC/NYC)
• Public ombudsman for accountability
• Editorial independence protected (like CPB)
This addresses local news collapse.
4. Media Literacy Education
Teach critical thinking about media in schools:
• How to identify bias
• How to verify sources
• How to spot misinformation
• How media business models create incentives
• How to consume news critically
This doesn’t fix media, but creates more sophisticated audience.
5. Antitrust Enforcement for Tech Platforms
Break up:
• Facebook (separate Instagram, WhatsApp, main platform)
• Google (separate Search, YouTube, Android, Chrome, Ad business)
• Amazon (separate retail, AWS, devices)
These monopolies have too much power over information flow.
THE BOTTOM LINE:
You can’t fix media manipulation without changing incentives.
Public funding changes incentives (serve public, not advertisers).
Breaking up monopolies changes incentives (more competition).
Regulations change incentives (accountability for misinformation).
Transparency changes incentives (viewers understand bias).
Individual journalists might want to do good work. But corporate structure prevents it.
Change the structure. Change the incentives. Get better journalism.
CONCLUSION: WHY YOU DIDN’T KNOW
We’ve spent 21 parts documenting wealth extraction from the bottom 90%:
Healthcare. Housing. Education. Prisons. Military. Taxes. Monopolies. Political corruption. Coordinated sabotage.
All documented. All public record. Names named, profits counted, coordination exposed.
So why didn’t you know?
Because the companies extracting wealth from you own the media that’s supposed to inform you.
And media companies—following rational incentives to maximize profit—manipulate you to keep you watching, divided, and distracted.
Fox News manufactures fear and alternate realities.
MSNBC and CNN sensationalize and create outrage.
All corporate media protects parent company interests and advertisers.
Social media algorithms radicalize users for engagement.
Local news has collapsed, leaving local corruption unchecked.
Investigative journalism is dying because it’s not profitable.
Meanwhile, NPR and PBS—proof that public media works—are deliberately starved of funding.
The manipulation isn’t a bug. It’s a feature.
The incentives reward manipulation.
Media profits from keeping you angry, afraid, divided, and misinformed about who’s actually extracting wealth from you.
They want you fighting about bathrooms and pronouns and immigration and guns—anything except the economic extraction happening to all of us.
Because if the bottom 90% understood that we have unified economic interests across race, geography, and culture war issues, we might actually organize and demand change.
And that would threaten the entire extraction system.
So they keep us divided. Deliberately.
Fox convinces rural conservatives that cities are dangerous, socialism is coming, and their enemies are urban liberals—not the corporations extracting wealth from rural and urban America alike.
MSNBC convinces urban liberals that their enemies are rural Trump voters—not the corporations extracting wealth from both.
And while we fight each other over cultural issues, the extraction continues unopposed.
Part 21 showed you how they sabotage public services.
Part 22 showed you how they control information to prevent awareness.
In Part 23, we’ll tackle the biggest propaganda lie of all: “Government is inefficient, private sector does it better.”
We’ll show you how AI and technology could make public services work better than private sector—and why they don’t want you to know that.
But first, understand this:
The media is lying to you. Not always with false facts (though Fox does that constantly), but with selective coverage, omission, manipulation, and framing designed to serve corporate interests.
You’re being played.
And once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
Watch the news now and ask:
• Who owns this network?
• Who advertises on this network?
• What aren’t they covering?
• Why are they covering this story this way?
• Who benefits from this framing?
Follow the money. Always.
The media won’t tell you the truth about wealth extraction.
So we will.
Even that's Odd 
Leave a comment