Should The Press Boycott Trump?
Sources
Donald J. Trump Truth Social Post, September 21, 2026. https://www.trumpstruth.org/statuses/41836
White House Access Is a Privilege — Not a Right. The White House. Press Release. September 21, 2026. https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/09/white-house-access-is-a-privilege-not-a-right/
Greenfield, Jeff. President Obama's Feud with FOX News. CBS News. October 23, 2009. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-obamas-feud-with-fox-news
Weissert, Will. Trump inaugurates new White House helipad, but networks skip coverage during First Amendment fight. AP. September 21, 2026. https://apnews.com/article/trump-helipad-cnn-ban-press-xi-61667fb3faaa9a7e9cfc9ffb4f7dc90e
Noveck, Jocelyn. News outlets sue Trump over lost White House access, citing ‘blatant violation’ of First Amendment. AP. September 22, 2026. https://apnews.com/article/trump-ban-ms-now-media-cnn-politico-72f9acf68244ca70e9078d9d3661c722
Kellman, Laurie. What is the White House pool? These days, it’s a battleground between Trump and free press rights. AP. September 21, 2026. https://apnews.com/article/trump-pool-ban-cnn-msnow-politico-dc1a144d37a5d2e90488eec110ca9835
Polantz, Katelyn. CNN, MS NOW and Politico sue Trump administration over White House access. CNN. September 21, 2026. https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/21/politics/cnn-politico-msnow-sue-white-house-access
Zemel v. Rusk, 381 US 1 (1965) https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/381/1.html
CNN, MS NOW, Politico v. DJT [Official Complaint]. September 21, 2026. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28661281-cnn-ms-now-and-politico-sue-trump-admin-over-white-house-access/
Duggan, Keith. Trump and the media are in a shared nightmare after he inadvertently bans himself from TV. The Irish Times. September 22, 2026. https://www.irishtimes.com/world/us/2026/09/22/donald-trump-and-the-media-he-loves-to-loathe-are-now-in-a-shared-nightmare/
Sullivan, Margaret. The Washington press corps needs to boycott White House events. The Guardian. September 21, 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/sep/21/white-house-press-corps-boycott
Ben-Ghiat, Ruth. A Reckoning for the Free Press in America, as a Weakened Trump Escalates His Attacks. September 20, 2026. https://lucid.substack.com/p/a-reckoning-for-the-free-press-in
Baker, Peter. After Years as the Star of Must-See TV, Trump Faces the Sting of Cancellation. The New York Times. September 21, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/21/us/politics/trump-television-reporters-cameras.html
The Press in the Third Reich. The Holocaust Encyclopedia. Accessed September 22, 2026. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-press-in-the-third-reich
Capparelle, Kate. An Overview of Censorship in Germany. Onero Insttiute. Accessed September 22, 2026. https://www.oneroinstitute.org/research/censorship-in-germany
Sosa, Daniela. Understanding the Impact of Journalism Inside Authoritarian Regimes. Global Investigative Journalism Network. August 9, 2022. https://gijn.org/stories/understanding-the-impact-of-journalism-inside-authoritarian-regimes/
Suliman, Adela. Defending Trump media ban, DOJ cites national security and says White House access is a ‘privilege’. NBC News. September 23, 2026. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-media-ban-white-house-access-privilege-national-security-doj-rcna599347
Trump Opposition Brief to CNN/MS NOW/POLITICO Request for Immediate Injunction: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.296754/gov.uscourts.dcd.296754.16.0.pdf
Transcript
On Monday, President Trump unveiled his brand new White House helipad on the South Lawn, taking an oversized golden pair of scissors to a red white and blue ribbon to herald in what he has touted as one of his many great presidential projects to fix up the old busted up white house, especially ahead of the arrival of Chinese leader Xi Jinping later this week, who Trump has assured us will be wowed by this beautiful new helipad. I assume he was making those same statements again after the ribbon cutting ceremony. There is, however, no way to know short of bringing in a presidential lip reader, because there was no media pool present at the ceremony to set up microphones and cameras to properly pick up the president’s remarks. If a president cuts a ribbon and cable news isn’t there to hear it, does it even happen at all? That is the question gripping a nation on the brink of full blown authoritarian dictatorship. What happens when the most TV-obsessed wannabe dictator in history is no longer on TV? And might a full mainstream media boycott be just the thing to snuff out the smoldering propaganda machine at its source?
Last Friday, seemingly to the surprise of all his staff, Trump announced he would be banning three major news organizations from participating in the White House Press Pool; those news organizations are CNN, MS NOW, formerly MSNBC, and Politico. By the next day, members from those news organizations who attempted to use their press passes to enter their offices at the White House were turned away and told their credentials had been revoked. When questioned about the ban, Trump doubled down, even calling it “the ban on the free press” [show clip] and explicitly saying that he didn’t like the contents of what they published, that they always published negative things about him. He crowed on about it on his Truth Social platform, repeatedly complaining about how unfair they are to him, and about how they’re constantly publishing lies about him. JD Vance supported the ban, calling the banned news organizations effectively far left propaganda. I apparently did not get the memo that CNN is now publishing the official talking points for Antifa, my bad. CNN, the far left psy op.
On Monday, the White House doubled down, issuing a press release claiming “The First Amendment protects their right to publish; it does not entitle them to a hard pass, briefing room seat, or place in the press pool.” But is that true? What does the First Amendment protect? How have past US presidents interacted with the press and what shades of authoritarian intent is Trump revealing in this latest ban? On Monday, CNN, MS NOW, and Politico filed a lawsuit attempting to answer just that.
AD
I am a major homebody and feeling safe while I’m at home is super important. And living in a major city as a woman I am CONSTANTLY aware of my surroundings. Especially when I lived alone, this included while I was at home, too, which meant I couldn’t ever really relax. Which is why I turned to my partner on today’s video Simplisafe to help me feel relaxed in my own home. Simplisafe helped me rest easy knowing that I wouldn’t be alone if someone attempted to target me or my home any time, day or night. SimpliSafe’s active guard can actually detect a threat before it ever enters your home, a live agent can step in and deter someone before they reach your door. Basically, Simplisafe is taking on the constant vigilance for me, so I can actually relax ok as someone with a certified anxiety disorder that really takes a mental load off me. And Simplisafe is really easy to install–there are no wires, no complex processes that require a professional, you can do it yourself in as little as half an hour. And I really like that the simplisafe system is customizable, so you get to decide where things are placed, whether or not you use cameras, and how much or how little you want the system to monitor. I personally like their glass break sensors especially for rooms with lots of windows or sliding doors, I put mine in the basement in case anyone tried to break a window where I couldn’t hear or see them. Their water sensor is also super handy in places like basements or under sinks, places you might not notice water leaking until it’s created a ton of damage. From their smoke and carbon monoxide detectors to their window and door entry sensors, SimpliSafe truly provides a whole home security system that is easy to install and tailor exactly for your needs. Experience these benefits and peace of mind for yourself, go to my link at simplisafe dot com slash leeja and get 50% off a system. Thanks to SimpliSafe for sponsoring today’s video: there’s no safe like simplisafe.
The lawsuit filed by CNN, MS NOW, and Politico on Monday with the US District Court in Washington DC lays out the arguments in favor of the press organizations. They are suing Trump in his official capacity as well as Steven Cheung, the assistant to the president for communications, Sean Curran, the director of the Secret Service which is in charge of issuing press passes to the White House journalists, and Susan Wiles, the White House Chief of Staff. In the complaint, they use Trump’s own words against him, including the part where he literally called it “the ban on the free press.” Trump has, over and over again, supported this ban by saying that he doesn’t like what they publish about him, that they say things that aren’t favorable to him. He calls it “fake news” and says they’re lying about him, but he regularly uses the label “fake news” for any media outlet that criticizes him. The term “fake news” rarely, in the way he uses it, ever includes news reporting with false information. Nor does he point to a specific instance of false defamatory reporting in this ban, instead he just complains of a cumulation of negative reporting against him that he doesn’t like.
And this is important. One of the central claims against the Trump regime in this lawsuit is the idea of “viewpoint discrimination.” If a government actor wants to try to control someone’s speech, they have to do so in a viewpoint-neutral and reasonable manner. For example, if a city ordinance bans all political yard signs for all candidates, that’s viewpoint neutral and needs to be supported by a good reason beyond just “I don’t like it.” Or a rule that bars loud speeches in a public park after 10pm. That’s technically curtailing free speech rights but it bans ALL loud speeches regardless of what they’re talking about and can be easily supported on the reasonable grounds that it’s a public nuisance for people to be screaming in parks at midnight. Trump, I’m sure going against the advice of the few actual lawyers he has advising him, paid no heed at all to the realities of the first amendment in this ban and in his subsequent statements making it very very clear that he banned the press because of the views they express. In the White House press release supporting the ban, they claim the First Amendment doesn’t protect their right to a press pass or to the White House press pool, but the law actually says quite the opposite.
The key here is that Trump is a government actor doing this ban. This isn’t a business man saying get out of my private office, this is an elected official sitting in an office built with taxpayer money doing consequential governmental things and telling the press they can’t be present for it. That has far deeper implications and is a deeply protected right in this country. As the complaint says, quoting from New York Times v. Sullivan, the most prominent case on the freedom of the press out of the Supreme Court, the guarantee of a free press reflects quote “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”
On top of this deeply rooted history, and a deeply rooted history is something the Supreme Court is really concerned with when it suits them, the news organizations also have caselaw directly on point dating back 50 years to support their claims. Including a 1977 case called Sherrill v. Knight in which the DC Circuit, the same one the case today is filed under, found in favor of a reporter from The Nation who had his press pass revoked by the Secret Service. That case said that “denial of a White House press pass is violative of the first amendment only if it is based upon the content of the journalist's speech or otherwise discriminates against a class of protected speech."
But they didn’t even need to go back that far to back up their claims that Trump’s behavior violates the First Amendment. During Trump’s first term, in 2018, Jim Acosta was a CNN journalist who got his press pass suspended by Trump because Trump didn’t like how he was reporting. He got his pass reinstated by a judge then, too. In fact, he got his press pass reinstated by Judge Tim Kelly, a Trump appointee. In fact, that same judge is now presiding over this lawsuit filed by CNN, MSNOW, and Politico. In fact, the news media organizations are being represented by the same lawyer who represented Jim Acosta back then as well. In FACT, Trump is so sure he’s going to lose this that he already posted on Truth Social that he plans to appeal the judge’s ruling. The judge he appointed. The judge that hasn’t even made a ruling yet.
They are also arguing that Trump’s ban violates their First Amendment rights against unlawful retaliation, that is it is illegal and unconstitutional for government actors to take retaliatory action against someone for their use of protected speech in order to deter that person from speaking again. And they’re claiming he violated their 5th Amendment due process rights–the 5th Amendment protects people from having their life, liberty, or property seized without due process by the federal government. That due process includes some sort of advance notice and an opportunity to be heard. Instead Trump posted about it on Truth Social and instated the ban the very next morning. That is not a constitutionally recognized form of due process.
To try to cover their asses, on Tuesday the Trump regime sent out notice letters to the three news organizations giving reasons for the revocation of their passes, a sort of half-assed attempt at retroactively giving them due process. The letters gave the news agencies a non-exhaustive list of what they called “reporting incidents” that threatened national security and spread lies. Notice that call to national security. When the law isn’t on their side, they will always ALWAYS point to national security concerns, because some of the time it works. The letters pointed to reporting about the east wing bunker and funding for the “ballroom”, munitions stockpiles impacted by the Iran war, and sanctions against Russia, according to reporting from NBC. And the letters gave the news organizations until Friday to contest the initial decision before they make a final decision about the revoked press passes.
After this blatant attempt at ass-covering, the government submitted their argument to the court as to why they shouldn’t be enjoined from banning these news organizations. They claim that the journalists failed to maintain basic minimum standards of professionalism and decorum by publishing sensitive or classified information. And they say see look we gave them due process. Ignore the fact that it was literally given a couple hours ago it’s FINE. And they argue oh Sherrill v. Knight, the case the other parties cite to? We don’t have a good legal argument so instead we’re going to argue that it’s just a bad decision and should be overruled. It works for us in the Supreme Court so let’s go with that here. Or, alternatively, national security. Yeaaah they’re a danger.
There is one area where the law is on their side and that is at the appellate stage. A case last year in which the Associated Press sued Trump after he banned them from the White House for their refusal to call the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America” resulted in the DC circuit reinstating AP’s press passes and then the DC appellate court stayed that preliminary injunction, meaning they let Trump’s AP ban stand everywhere except the East Room, which the two Trump appointees on the Appellate court reasoned was the only place that was constitutionally protected under the First Amendment as a public forum for journalists to enter. Everywhere else–the oval office, airforce one, and Mar a Lago, wasn’t protected under the First Amendment so the president had the discretion to decide who could be there. And that’s the power of having judicial appointees willing to place the supremacy of the president over longstanding legal precedent and the rights of the people to have access to information. And once one panel is willing to make that ruling, all future courts and all of Trump’s lawyers have that precedent to point to to back up their continued abuses of power. On the DC court of appeals there are only 3 Trump appointees out of 11 total judges, and cases are randomly assigned a 3-judge panel, so there’s no telling how the appellate court may rule if and when Trump appeals this case up to them.
Meanwhile, the original complaint alleges, the President is doing incredibly consequential things this week, going to the UN General Assembly, meeting with a major world leader, leading a country that is actively at war and navigating a dismal AI landscape, all the while these major news organizations are being barred from accessing him and that information, creating an immediate and ongoing injury to the livelihoods of these news organizations and their reporters. So in light of the immediate harms being caused, the parties requested an emergency hearing to ask the judge to issue an emergency injunction to force the president to reinstate their press passes and their presence inside the White House. The hearing for that is happening today, Wednesday September 23rd and just based on history and precedent and the plain language of the law I imagine the judge will issue an injunction reinstating their press passes as the case continues winding its way through court, if the judge hasn’t already issued a ruling by the time this episode goes live– another frivolous waste of tax payer money on the part of the president who actively puts this country in legal liability every time he opens his mouth.
In the meantime, this ban has ignited a really important discussion about press freedoms in the United States. On Monday, Trump held a ceremony to unveil the new White House helipad as you saw in the intro. The reason why you couldn’t hear anything he said is because the press is usually there to set up the sound equipment. The official White House press pool has a rotation of five major media organizations that take turns collecting audio and video of the President. They can’t ALL shove themselves into every space wherever he is so this allows for newsgathering and dissemination that is coordinated among the various news organizations. CNN is one of those five media organizations on the rotation. CNN was banned on Friday and it was their turn to manage the press pool newsgathering on Monday. In solidarity with their colleagues at CNN and MS NOW and Politico, the other 4 main media companies covering the press pool agreed not to fill in CNN’s shoes, to boycott the President’s activities until they are reinstated, to not publish photos of him for official White House events. Of course, they published other media of the president as he went about his business, invited to cover his meeting with Mayor Mamdani by Mamdani himself or using their UN credentials to cover Trump's presence at the UN general assembly. But the fanfare of the helipad unveiling, for example, an event exclusively at the White House, went unaired. CNN wasn’t there to say LIVE BREAKING NEWS THE PRESIDENT IS CUTTING A RIBBON!!!
And this is kind of the central question here: on the one hand, when Trump lambasts the press, when he denies them access to information, when he targets journalists with harassment, subpoenas, or searches and seizures of their property like he did to a Washington Post reporter earlier this term, that causes a chilling effect wherein journalists or their bosses get scared into submission, where they think twice about publishing information for fear of retaliation. That is a violation not only of the free press rights of the press and the individual journalists being targeted but also of you and me. It is a violation of OUR right to access information, to hold government accountable, to know what’s happening with our tax dollars, and I think that’s really important to grasp here. The incredible violation of the right of the PEOPLE that Trump is committing every single day in many different ways but especially when he bars access to information that we have a right to know. Which is why it’s incredibly important to call it out for what it is, unconstitutional, a violation of our rights, a violation of the VERY FIRST AMENDMENT to our constitution. This behavior should never ever be normalized.
But this is also igniting a conversation about our news media in general and whether 24/7 access to the President on White House grounds really is necessary for the people to have access to information. Do we really need reporters on the plane with the president as he travels so he can chat with them at his leisure and tell them “quiet piggy” whenever he wants? Do we need reporters ready at a moment’s notice so Trump can snap his fingers and immediately be broadcast live to millions of people whenever he wants? Is that type of reporting really increasing our access to information and improving our democracy? Or is it adding fuel to the fire of a megalomaniac president who can do and say whatever he wants and knows the press will treat it like breaking news coming to you live from inside the White House. The press didn’t need to be present for me to know that Trump unveiled a helipad on Monday. This is not to say the press should ignore what Trump is doing, obviously he’s the president and what he does is incredibly consequential for our democracy, but the press can do their factfinding and their holding the president to account without having a physical office inside the White House. They can get powerful stories from great sources and informants off campus. Without giving Trump the opportunity to give sound bite after sound bite whenever he wants. They can cover his movement without being in the airplane with him. In fact the recent incident in which Trump was secreted away through a catering container off a plane they thought might be targeted while the press stayed on board unknowingly acting as decoys and targets for a potential attack, makes me wonder if that level of sacrifice on the part of journalists is really necessary to hold the administration to account?
What is 24/7 access to the president really accomplishing? Of course we should, through our journalists, be able to question the president, but every question is an opportunity for Trump to lie and turn the conversation back to his rehearsed talking points. Perhaps there’s a moment or two of outrageous language or behavior, of Trump falling asleep or something, that can be used as a convenient clip to circulate online, and press presence at official visits, cabinet meetings, etc., to report on what happens is of course essential information gathering, but I think there’s a line that maybe has been pushed too far by the constant drone of the 24 hour news cycle that is pretty much exclusively benefitting the regime and not actually contributing the public knowledge and democracy. I don’t have a clear answer, these are questions worth pondering though that this whole controversy is bringing up. And the power of the press pool boycott was immediately apparent. It was an emperor has no clothes moment, watching Trump speak into the wind and hearing nothing. It made far more impact and far more of a statement than if everything was as usual, if the media continued covering Trump as though he was just another president. That is the power of labor organizing in action, my friends, of solidarity going above fear of retribution, of the power that especially the press still has over this president. They make him fucking furious, all the time, he’s obsessed with them. Together they could send an incredibly powerful message as to the importance of press freedoms, of holding this administration to account, of not normalizing the behavior of this regime, and of not giving any oxygen to a bunch of people who have proven themselves for a literal decade to be habitual liars to the detriment of the republic.
And Trump’s team would have you believe this is completely normal behavior. In their filing asking the judge to keep the press ban in place, they say well George Washington hand-picked the journalists that covered his farewell address. Theodore Roosevelt invited hand-picked reporters to the oval office for off-the-record press conferences. President Kennedy gave certain reporters “special access” based on who he liked more. And President Johnson gave personal interviews as a means of reward and punishment. And in the official White House press release defending Trump, they say look Obama tried to ban Fox from pool coverage–though the reality is that it was Obama’s Treasury Department which tried to exclude Fox from pool coverage specifically of interviews with one key official, which the Treasury Department then backed down from after all the other major news networks came to Fox’s defense. Of course none of these examples–five instances they can point to in the country’s 250 year history–even hold a candle to the unprecedented levels of abuse Trump is lobbing at the press now, nor do they compare to the all-out bans he is attempting to put on certain news outlets from all White House press coverage. It simply doesn’t compare. What is happening Is. Not. Normal. And we have to continue talking about how abnormal it is, over and over and over again, so it doesn’t become the new normal in the US.
On Tuesday, the White House official YouTube channel unveiled Trump TV, a constant livestream of various clips of Trump content, an apparent toe dip into an authoritarian favorite: state media. It had me wondering how other authoritarians dealt with the media in the past. I mean it makes sense if you’re an authoritarian attempting to delegitimize the entire press to have your own press on hand. This was clearly something Trump didn’t consider ahead of the helipad snafu on Monday but makes it really clear why it’s valuable to have skilled journalists and camera and sound crew on payroll at the behest of the president. It increases control over the narrative and creates polished propaganda. Trump owns a SOCIAL media platform, and Americans increasingly get their news from social media, but the mainstream media still play a pivotal role in newsgathering and in creating the sound bites and clips that social media relies upon.
And of course it makes sense why an authoritarian would want to get rid of the press–being questioned on your authority is like the worst thing you can experience as an authoritarian. The relationship between the government and the press is adversarial by design, it is MEANT to be tense, that is the point. If the press isn’t making the government squirm a little and keeping the government in check by making officials think twice before doing something that might make them look bad, then that means you have a press in bed with the government and that’s not their role. Their role is to hold the government accountable. That requires an adversarial stance. But that relationship has changed in the 21st century with increased media capture by elites sympathetic to a white nationalist capitalist populist buffoon because it serves them well.
Authoritarian scholar Ruth Ben-Ghiat recently wrote a substack article about this whole debacle that I’ll link in my sources because I think it’s worth a thorough read. On the role of the press asking questions, she says quote "Answering questions is experienced as a submission to others and an affront to his power. Far better to pivot by insulting the questioners, to demean them in front of the eyes of the world, or bar offending individuals from the privilege of having access to your person." Ben-Ghiat points to a two-part propaganda process by authoritarians–noise and silence. The silencing is happening with these press bans but they are being accompanied at the same time with an increase in noise from the regime, expanding time and resources dedicated to propaganda. You can see this in Trump TV, in the way everyone is falling in line and doubling down in step with the president. And efficient indoctrination of the masses requires coordination of the noise, that all the propaganda lines up, follows the same talking points, like with the Nazi policy of synchronization which today in the 21st century looks a lot more like media capture by a few elites aligned with the president and allowed to conglomerate despite strong anti-trust laws on the books. A free press gets in the way of that coordination, they keep informing the masses about the consequences of the actions of the regime. That is really inconvenient, and so now the regime is flailing because they didn’t consolidate power fast enough. Ben-Ghiat ties this current attempt at silence and noise with the looming merger between Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros Discovery, a further conglomeration of the media landscape into the hands of a billionaire family that Trump has in his pocket. She writes, quote “I have studied propaganda for decades, including authoring a book on Italian Fascist propaganda cinema, and I can tell you that a merger that would create a propaganda megastructure encompassing entertainment content and news would be devastatingly effective as a tool for democratic destruction." She points to former Hungarian president Victor Orban, who so effectively captured the media that fully 85% of it was aligned with his regime. The only way Peter Magyar was able to defeat him in the most recent election was because he spent two years in the Hungarian countryside, touring rural villages to spread his message and bypass the media capture.
But it was actually, much to my surprise that in researching other authoritarian regimes for this episode I found what I can only describe as… hope? For example, for the Nazis to consolidate power so quickly required a really strong propaganda apparatus which they were able to achieve in part by outlawing political parties and shuttering hundreds of newspapers and seizing their printing plants. The propaganda ministry assumed control of the Reich Association of the German Press which regulated who could be a journalist, kept registries of racially pure journalists, handed down mandates and instructions to journalists under the Editors Law of October 1933, ordered editors to censor anything “calculated to weaken the strength of the Reich abroad or at home.” Then they rounded up their political opponents and any journalists who didn’t comply and sent them to newly minted concentration camps. These were some of the very first people to be rounded up by the Nazis. Because they understood the power of a free press. In fact, authoritarian regimes the world over and across history share that in common–attacking and literally murdering so-called political enemies, especially the ones questioning their legitimacy and informing the masses, the journalists. And as much as Trump is doing his darndest to intimidate journalists into submission and taking steps in an authoritarian direction, he is not, as of right now, rounding them up and murdering them or attacking and murdering their informants and sources. And that is the hope I’m grasping on to. We’re not so far gone that this can’t be reversed. It is precisely in these moments when it is essential that we acknowledge and call this repression of the free press what it is–authoritarianism in action–so that it never gets as far as it has gotten in other countries. We have strong First Amendment protections and traditions in the US and a strong history of press freedom. It is an imperfect history, but the First Amendment is central to US identity and we must lean into that in the form of speaking out when abuses against the press happen to make sure it is never normalized, to make sure that the door is never opened to allow full authoritarian capture of the press.
And as much as the far right has managed to co-opt new media and find propaganda hucksters ready and waiting to make a profit off shilling their talking points, there is a strong leftist presence online, there are journalists who believe deeply in their role of holding the government accountable who are increasingly using social media to meet people where they’re at and get the information to the masses. But the mainstream media, as much as we like to deride them, are still our main source of direct news because they have some of the best journalists with the best sources. And so calling them out when they publish biased bullshit, pushing for enforcement of our anti-trust laws to break up the conglomerates, is SUPER important but we also have to recognize the incredibly central role they STILL play in holding this regime to account, as evidenced by the power of their collective boycott this week. I hope that they continue to use that power and the strength in their numbers to push for real accountability from this regime. And I’ll continue to be here screaming about it all from my little corner of the internet.
To support my work, please consider joining on Patreon to get bonus content that didn’t make it into the video plus all these episodes completely ad free. Thank you to my multi-platinum patrons Christopher Cowan, Marc, Sarah Shelby, Art, David, L’etranger (Lukus), Thomas Johnson, and Tay. Your generosity makes this channel what it is, so thank you!
Don’t miss my video from last week about who the fuck is supposed to save us from the AI apocalypse???
