The Never Ending Intellectual Theft of Truth: How the Mainstream Media Cartel Dismembers the Facts

Introduction

Taking risks in research can be viewed as a problem for some authors or could be seen as a positive stance. A component of risk-taking that necessitates both positive and negative outcomes should be confronted by the decision-maker (Zinn, 2016). If researchers are to publish on risky topics, the information can transfer knowledge and educate the public by broadening the literature; otherwise, it would prevent the public from knowing valuable unbiased information. In college, students are researching for their thesis and dissertations on various topics and, for the most part, confine themselves to the same monotonous topics without broadening their choices due to their fear of researching risky subjects. At times they may even get locked in a certain topic as their dissertation chair or advisors also fear researching risky topics or may even have an agenda of their own. Arar et al. (2019) edited a book on the challenges that migrant refugee students have in higher education, “ignoring the relationship between refugees, migrants, and higher education would be a mistake and a missed opportunity, but little attention has been paid to this dimension of the internalization of higher education” (p. xvii). According to Ross et al. (2021), researchers are taking a risk when researching and publishing on perilous topics, as their repute may be tarnished after researching a sensitive topic, and in turn, may possibly lose their status. Furthermore, for those students who are just entering the workforce after academia, they are at risk of not attaining a prominent position in higher education or research to include obtaining grants. It can also be said that students are being indoctrinated in terms of what topics they are to research, especially in science, as they are aware of what topics will permit them to attain grants. At the same token, established researchers have found a method to assist future researchers’ thoughts (Maxmen, 2009).

For the purpose of this chapter, the authors could be taking a risk by discussing Fake News as this is a topic that is controversial in nature. However, the authors feel this material should be written to inform all audiences who watch the mainstream media to be better informed of the opinion news of pundits who have their own agenda versus journalistic news. Researchers should not be faced with a cancel culture when reporting on research versus pundits who only base their point of view on their own agenda. As a consumer of news and/or social media communications, individuals consider full transparency; however, with the increased 24-hour news cycles and increase in pundit-styled panels as well as the Big Tech corporations deciding what should be read or canceled is widespread (Jackson, 2014; Letukas, 2012; Tsfati et al., 2020). This amateur-style punditry is encouraged by the mainstream media moguls to force their agendas and repetitive talking points regarding politics and politicians, elections, immigration, the economy, and other world events. Jackson (2014) stated the resources are being used by media moguls not only to persuade people to buy their newspapers but to additionally influence politics. In addition, some mainstream media outlets also omit important events for public viewership, as it does not align with their narratives (Ross et al., 2019). Pundits are capable of having suggestive versions and content that could be repeated and manipulated into many sound bites, disguised as traditional news, and premeditated spread of fake news, all in the process to advance their own ideologies, political goals, guarantee that the viewership took a specific side of the story, and generate advertising revenue to their organization (Jackson, 2014; Letukas, 2012; Tsfati et al., 2020).