Elon Musk Exposes Elite Control Over Mainstream Media in Epic Rant

Elon Musk Exposes Elite Control Over Mainstream Media in Epic Rant

Tesla founder reveals oil industry influence over MSM jounalists

Elon Musk has exposed the elite’s control and influence over mainstream media journalists during an epic rant.

The PayPal, Tesla, and Space X founder lifted the lid on how MSM “journos” sugarcoat lies to “get max clicks and earn advertising dollars” due to being heavily influenced by oligarchs in major industries.

The billionaire inventor revealed that the oil and traditional automotive industry funds the mainstream media in order to give bad press for electric cars and alternative energy sources in general.

Musk was unforgiving towards the mainstream media in his epic Twitter tirade, calling them hypocrites and stating that the public no longer trusts them.

He said that he doesn’t promote for Tesla, his electric car company, which implies that he contributes no loan to the media, who depend on marketing dollars to remain fund their organizations.

On the other hand, the conventional car market and fossil fuel business are among the world’s biggest marketers, indicating that they are among the main industries keeping the mainstream media in operation.

When it comes time to cover a story that includes these industries, reporters, and media organizations have an obvious bias and conflict of interest that will influence their protection of the story even if they were not provided explicit orders to create propaganda.

“The holier-than-thou hypocrisy of big media companies who lay claim to the truth, but publish only enough to sugarcoat the lie, is why the public no longer respects them.

“Problem is journos are under constant pressure to get max clicks & earn advertising dollars or get fired.

“Tricky situation, as Tesla doesn’t advertise, but fossil fuel companies & gas/diesel car companies are among world’s biggest advertisers,” Musk said.

One of the dark tricks of the marketing market is that commercials are not always planned to offer something, but are in some cases an undercover kickback, which corporations use to control the narrative on the sponsored news sources.

An apparent example of this is how military arms providers like Boeing or Lockheed Martin will market on significant networks regardless of the fact that their products are not readily available for sale to the individuals watching the ads.

It is no coincidence that global stories are covered with a pro-war slant on every major media platform when the arms dealerships are advertising on every one.

In truth, that is the very reason that they advertise.

The same goes for recruitment ads for the military as these serve the double function of recruiting as well as controlling the story of the media outlet by becoming their sponsor.

Next, Musk announced that he was preparing to develop his own media ranking site that would rate the reliability of reporters by crowdsourcing reviews from readers.

He likewise put up a survey asking his followers if it would be a great concept, or offered the ironical option of “no, media are amazing.”

Musk suggested that he would call his website “Pravda.”

While it would appear that these were thoughts coming off the top of his head, one Twitter follower pointed out that one of Musk’s representatives “incorporated Pravda Corp in California” in October 2017.

Overhaul of the fake “fact-checking” system

“Fact-checking” websites like Snopes are driven by the financial incentive to debunk viral articles.

When a big story breaks and starts to spread across social media, these so-called “fact-checkers” pounce on it to capitalize on its popularity, all while making a fortune from their sponsors.

When the owner of Snopes, David Mikkelson, was caught embezzling company money to spend on prostitutes, it clearly highlights the fact that these people are driven by money rather than checking for the truth.

Rather than centralized fact-checking sites like Snopes or Politifact, which have an obvious predisposition, Musk proposed a website that allowed the public to decide who they relied on to rate journalists.

Naturally, any kind of ranking system is dependant upon the opinions of the masses, which can often be incorrect or politically motivated, and are almost constantly controversial.

Nevertheless, this appears to be the very best model that has been proposed therefore far, and it does not appear to favor the mainstream media as other popular “fact checkers” do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.