You have demonstrated that you are incapable of finding out. You will learn nothing, for example, from the rest of this post: Nothing I posted depended on your opinion of some of the superrich. Unbased? Your claim to find stereotypical leftist ideology in me, motivating my responses, was in error. I harbor no such ideology as you describe, and make no responses based on ideology I do not possess, and since you clearly know nothing about me I provide you with that information. I possess more and better information about me than you do (I know, for example, that I do not favor State ownership of the news business, preferring market competition) - a statement you have repeatedly described as offensive bragging, because you have repeatedly failed to learn that simple lesson from past discussions. Just as you failed to take the obvious lesson from this: Clearly you, like anyone, can see the direction of power there: one obtains political power by controlling mass media, one gains control of mass media through successful business dealings. Under capitalism, the businessman typically corrupts the politician, not the other way around. The threats, as well as the bribes, come from the businessman. So - - You were making claims purporting to be about my ideology, and instead illustrating your propensity to find propaganda in what is simple fact: the mainstream news is big business in my region - large, profitable (in theory), capitalistic, business. This is true regardless of anyone's ideology. It is relevant because you insist on two things: big and successful businessmen are typically honest, to the point that my claims to find rampant dishonesty in them is presumptively wrong - impossible on theoretical grounds; and the high level news media are entirely dishonest, to the point that my claim to easily find honest journalists among them is presumptively wrong - impossible on theoretical grounds. So in your theory: Matt Taibbi, James Fallows, Charles Pierce, and Michael Lewis - just pulling names offhand from the past couple of weeks reading - are dishonest minions producing propaganda, while Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch and Robert Pittman and Dan Abrams and Phil Griffin and so forth (again, pulling names from the last few days) are the honest employers of such propagandists. Do you see the problem? Here are the successful big businessmen in the field, non-politicians all, according to you typically honest: http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart Similarly with the politicians. It's easy for me to find honest high level politicians, past and present, in my part of the world; although the judgment is always contingent because the pressure of wealthy and powerful business interests is always there (Paul Wellstone throughout, Al Franken so far, Tim Walz so far, Russ Feingold so far, several more). And you cannot back up and revise your earlier arguments, like this: because the claims you denied were existence claims, and you denied them without inquiry or evidence. You made impossibility claims. And why is that relevant here? Because one key feature of the Trump phenomenon is that he did not "fool" (meaning "surprise") the actual journalists nearly as completely as he "fooled" the propagandists. There are many journalists who recognized Trump's threat, what and whom he represented, -> the nature of the Republican Party's voting base, in other words, not just the nature of Trump, years ago. There are others who picked up on his incoming status among the Republican Presidential field early on, while there were still many candidates and the propagandists were blind to it. And if you try to pretend that all of supposed high level journalism and politics is equivalently dishonest propaganda and corruption, to cover your own poor judgments, errors, and incapabilities, you betray them.