Replies

the liberals who are the mainstream media are the most evil.

Our language is so corrupted by Newspeak that even when you know the truth, you don’t actually make sense when you try to say it. First, “liberals” belongs in scare quotes because there is nothing “liberal” about socialism. And you are actually referring to socialists.
Second, when you say “the mainstream media” what you actually mean is wire service journalism. It’s not the medium by which the public receives the message, it’s the half-truthing, lying message itself. And the first lie is the oxymoron of claiming to be objective - when the only way to even attempt to be objective is to eschew any such claim, and instead confess your interests in whiter case you are discussing. If you are a business journalist, and you own stock in a company you are touting, you have to say so - and that is the opposite of claiming to be objective. If you are a general-interest journalist, your interest in every report is that the incident in question seem interesting and important (whether anyone will remember it a year from now or not) and that the report make you seem important.
I emphasize “wire service” journalism because the wire services - any and all of them - have the effect of homogenizing the perspective of journalism. It creates a milieu in which the interests of journalism, as discussed above, shine through in every story, and the wonderfulness of journalism itself is the whole message. In this vision, the people who actually do things, instead of merely criticizing, don’t count. Only the journalist is to be trusted, and he is to be trusted implicitly.
The Newspeak formulation, BTW, requires that you not speak of journalists as “liberal” but as “objective” - people with exactly the same attitudes as journalists are “liberal” until and unless they actually have a press card. Then it would be gauche to call that same person - George Stephanopolis, poster boy - “liberal.”