Conspirituality Episode 232: Gaslighting The Election - Detailed Summary

Release Date: November 14, 2024

In Episode 232 of Conspirituality, hosts Derek Barris, Matthew Remsky, and Julian Walker delve into the intricate web of media manipulation surrounding the 2024 election. Titled "Gaslighting The Election," the episode dissects how certain media outlets, particularly the Free Press, contribute to a distorted narrative that undermines public understanding and democratic integrity. This summary captures the key discussions, insights, and conclusions drawn by the hosts, enriched with notable quotes and timestamps for reference.

1. Introduction: The Decline of Traditional Media

[02:41] Julian Walker kicks off the episode by lamenting the loss of unbiased journalism. He paints a picture of a bygone golden age when news media were "fair and balanced, unbiased and honest." However, he argues that this era has been eroded by factors like big money influence, political correctness, and "woke censorship." Julian criticizes new media figures and outlets, including the Free Press, for masquerading as nonpartisan while promoting culture war narratives.

2. The Free Press: Masking Bias as Neutrality

Julian elaborates on the Free Press's portrayal as a centrist, truth-seeking outlet. He cites their election night live stream, which superficially claims to offer balanced coverage but, in reality, leans heavily towards right-wing perspectives. A notable example is their praise of Donald Trump as "the consummate bullshitter come to take an axe to democratic institutions."

3. Influencers and Media Manipulation

[04:10] Derek Barris transitions to current events, highlighting how influencers like Jake Paul propagate misinformation. He references a tweet by Jake Paul claiming imminent global political resolutions involving Trump, Putin, Iran, Hamas, China, and Kamala Harris. [04:27] Derek underscores the dangers of such "low information propagandists" who manipulate their followers' perceptions without credible sources.

4. Bari Weiss and the Free Press's Contradictions

[10:19] Bari Weiss, co-founder of the Free Press, delivers a statement positioning the outlet as a bastion against media bias. Julian and Matthew critically analyze Bari's background, revealing her transitions from the New York Times to creating a media outlet with a clear right-leaning slant. [14:23] Matthew Remsky discusses her deep-rooted American Zionist beliefs and her rigid stance against any criticism of Israel, which he views as a foundational flaw in her pursuit of "free speech."

[10:19] Bari Weiss: "It’s okay to be liberal or conservative or politically non-binary. And though it shouldn't be, having a newsroom that reflects the politics of America has become extraordinarily unusual."

Julian points out the Free Press's false claim of objectivity, exposing their financial backing from right-wing billionaires and highlighting their selective coverage that aligns with right-wing culture wars rather than genuine journalistic integrity.

5. Election Night Live Stream: A Showcase of Bias

[25:11] Julian Walker describes the Free Press's election night live stream, which featured a diverse yet ideologically skewed panel of guests, including conservatives, libertarians, and several high-profile anti-woke commentators. Notable participants included Eliana Johnson from the Free Beacon, Coleman Hughes, and John McWhorter.

A pivotal moment occurs when Richie Torres, a Democratic congressman, addresses the fears surrounding Trump's potential presidency:

[27:27] Richie Torres: "The world will survive. And I'm confident that the American republic is strong enough to survive even a demagogue like Donald Trump. ... I do worry about Donald Trump's temperament. I do think he's temperamentally unqualified to be president."

Despite Torres' balanced viewpoint, the Free Press hosts like Anna Khachiyan quickly shift the narrative to hero-worship, undermining his legitimate concerns without substantive engagement.

6. The Distinction Between Lies and Bullshit

A significant segment involves a discussion on the nature of truthfulness in political discourse. [34:49] Peter Savodnik from the Free Press critiques Trump's honesty:

Peter Savodnik: "Trump bullshits constantly. But when it comes to saying what he is thinking and what he means... people love that."

[36:23] Matthew Remsky and Julian Walker refute this by referencing philosopher Harry Frankfurt's distinction between lying and bullshit. They argue that Bullshit, as defined by Frankfurt, erodes the very foundation of truth, making it a more dangerous form of deception than outright lies.

[37:05] Julian Walker: "Harry Frankfurt is making that distinction by way of saying bullshitters are worse."

This critical analysis emphasizes how the Free Press and similar outlets fail to recognize the moral decay introduced by rampant misinformation.

7. The Free Press's Funding and Hidden Agendas

[54:51] Derek Barris critiques the Free Press’s financial backing, revealing that they are funded by billionaires with entrenched right-wing agendas. He references an article from the Financial Times stating:

"In September the Free Press was valued at $100 million. And from the beginning the funding for the Free Press has come from the same group of billionaires who have supported the campaigns of RFK Jr and JD Vance and other more ultra right-wing political candidates."

This funding undermines the outlet's claim of being an independent, nonpartisan media source, exposing a clear right-wing bias.

8. Left vs. Liberalism: Clarifying Political Terms

A significant portion of the episode is dedicated to distinguishing between leftism and liberalism, as well as critiquing the Free Press for conflating these terms. [53:05] Derek Barris and [55:36] Matthew Remsky delve into the historical and ideological differences, arguing that the Free Press misrepresents the Democratic Party’s stance by equating liberal policies with leftist ideals. They emphasize that genuine leftist solutions, such as wealth redistribution, universal healthcare, and comprehensive social safety nets, are conspicuously absent from the Free Press's discourse.

[55:11] Matthew Remsky: "If we don't know what we're talking about when we're talking about leftism and liberalism, ... we can't really say what people are responding to, why they are mad, what they're not being offered, what they think they're being cheated of."

This confusion contributes to the media's inability to address core societal issues, instead focusing on superficial culture war topics.

9. Conclusion: The Real Impact of Media Gaslighting

In wrapping up, Julian Walker highlights the Free Press's failure to provide balanced, substantive coverage:

[62:35] Julian Walker: "The Free Press presents itself as a plucky little independent startup and they're against the elites. But it doesn't take too much journalistic digging to expose some quite different facts. ... they are actually bought and paid for to just ask questions on right-wing culture war talking points."

Derek Barris echoes this sentiment, emphasizing the urgent need for independent media to rise above partisan agendas and provide truth-based journalism.

[65:01] Derek Barris: "Thank you for listening to another episode of Conspirituality and in this precarious time, if you are someone who is able to support independent media, we are on Patreon and Apple subscriptions. We'll see you soon."

Key Takeaways:

• Free Press claims neutrality but exhibits clear right-wing biases, influenced by substantial right-wing funding.
• Influencers like Jake Paul spread misinformation, further complicating public perception.
• The distinction between lying and bullshit is critical in understanding media manipulation.
• There is a pervasive confusion between leftism and liberalism, which hampers meaningful political discourse.
• Genuine leftist solutions are often sidelined in favor of culture war narratives, weakening democratic integrity.

This episode of Conspirituality underscores the pressing need for discerning media consumption and the importance of recognizing and challenging media bias to preserve democratic values.