"You Just Lied" - Elon Musk Shuts Down BBC Reporter During Live Interview

I've not been this entertained by a media interview in a while. This also happens to reveal the quickly declining quality of mainstream media and its journalists.

Set Your Pulse: Take a breath. Release the tension in your body. Place attention on your physical heart. Breathe slowly into the area for 60 seconds, focusing on feeling a sense of ease. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

---

On April 11th, Elon Musk was interviewed on the BBC by journalist James Clayton. It stands, in my opinion, as an excellent example of the decline of quality in mainstream media, and the stuck thinking that exists within most of its journalists.

Listening to the full 60-minute interview, it seems clear it was designed to place Musk in a bad light the entire time. While asking tough questions can be the job of a journalist, this interview reeks of attempts to create ‘got ya’ moments that just never arrive.

Like Musk or hate him, (and you don’t have to like everything he does) he is giving oxygen to important conversations, and pushing back on a mainstream culture that has deeply lost its way. Interviews like this expose the agenda of mainstream media, helping those who are on the fence about what to believe continue to think more critically about the narrative control of MSM.

We need more of this.

Have a look at my favorite part of the interview below.

When someone can’t provide a single example for what they are claiming is a problem, you know there is a good chance they are operating from an unfounded pop culture belief and not reality.

He couldn’t name a specific example. Is it because the idea that hate speech increased since Musk took over Twitter is a sentiment generally accepted in the mainstream sphere but doesn’t have evidence to support it?

Is it just an idea repeated over and over by a culture that wishes to control and cancel anyone who steps out of line? Is there even a clear definition within mainstream thinking around ‘hate speech?’ Or is it hate speech if someone simply doesn’t like it?

In talking with a friend of our channel David Helfrich, he said he felt like the BBC journalist reminded him of Agent Smith from The Matrix. I thought this was perfect.

A journalist in the matrix, straight off the assembly line, repeating ideas programmed in from a culture, but not critically thought about. It pains me to partly reduce a person to programming, but it’s honestly what I see of his current expression and consciousness. And I think this has become so normal to people they don’t realize how odd it is.

Mainstream journalists are in an echo chamber themselves, even though they love writing articles about how only conspiracy theorists are the ones in an echo chamber.

MSM’s standards for proof, evidence, and meaningful dialogue have dipped or disappeared - much like the weaker outlets in the alternative media sphere, yet they can’t bare to admit it.

Let’s look at another example of Clayton’s position.

In April of 2022, Clayton took issue with the idea that Joe Rogan got a subscriber bump following an interview that discussed controversial ideas about COVID. See the Tweet below:

Think about it, dialogue on Rogan’s podcast was considered dangerous, even though Clayton fails to point out what exactly is dangerous, just like he failed to do in Musk’s interview. Further, who is deciding what is true and false, and what is misinformation?

Virtually all aspects of the COVID narrative, from mask efficacy to vaccine safety and efficacy to the severity of disease etc, have been clarified as wildly misrepresented by mainstream media, yet does Clayton know this?

These days, all you have to do is SAY something is dangerous, and it is… unless you’re indie media, then you are held to a higher standard of course.

To me, the logic of the mainstream reacting to Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter is ideologically driven.

It seems to operate something like this:

Everything that is said in the mainstream must be fact.
Elon Musk = bad.
Elon Musk taking over Twitter = bad, and must mean more fake news.
Elon Musk speaks fake news = fact.
Therefore, everything we say about Elon Musk must be true, even if we have no evidence. And, we don’t need evidence because we are right.

A more honest and truth-seeking way of operating would be to stick to what the totality of the evidence ACTUALLY says - not just the stuff one prefers is true.

The Upsides

One can see the state of mainstream media as sad or as an evolutionary pressure. It’s a system that is dying, and as it dies, it becomes more ridiculous. In its ridiculousness, more people realize why it must die or deeply evolve.

Historically, significant systems don’t change without going through this process. Eventually, people will see it for what it is.

And to my friends already highly attuned to indie media, I know, some will say “Musk's popularity is an agenda to get you to like him so everyone will accept his brain implants.” I find this a lazy analysis, and part of the general problem we have with black-and-white thinking.

Like anyone, there will be things you like about a person and things you don’t. Musk has done many things with his money and power I don’t support, while other things that I do.

Embrace complexity, we can’t afford to be stuck in ideological thinking any longer.