metamars contention is that the MSM internationally, ignores the TM. If you wish to illustrate that his contention is wrong, take it up with him.
He contends, via that chart, that the $100,000 is responsible for the MSM ignoring the TM.
MSM <> left alternative media. Furthermore, if you actually bother to look at the graph, you'll see that there is far more money involved than $100,000.
You might characterize it as marginalizing the TM as 'crackpots' or , as in the words of one speaker who holds no stock in the TM "Nazi crackpots".
You seem to have reading comprehension problems. Most arguments about the necessity of conspiracy participation on the part of journalists, made by debunkers, completely ignore sociological and psychological context and arguments. IMO, when "debunkers" insist on doing this, even
after it's been pointed out that this is too limited, they are showing just how
uncritical their thinking is.
Since the nature of main stream media is different from left alternative media, one shouldn't blithely apply arguments made to MSM to the left alternative media, without considering inherent differences, also. Being a "follow the money" sort of conspiracy theorist, paying close attention to any differences regarding funding needs no justification.
Do please note that intelligent journalists, looking at the defects of their own profession,
do not shy away from nuanced arguments or considering the problem multi-faceted. Gee, just think of all that "debunkers" could learn from intelligent journalists - but never will!
I am making fun of the idea that $100,000 will buy that level of influence, especially with organizations who are definitely unfriendly to the present administration, and in some cases all past USA administrations.
Your math stinks. Even if you got the math right, it's silly to apply any sort of 1-1 argument re "buying influence". Money isn't all there is to influencing an organization. I simply pointed out yet another facet of the problem, though it's often a major facet.
BTW, I've never checked this, but I consider it a slam dunk that one way to identify a left gatekeeper organization is to see if they've covered the topic of left gatekeeping, itself, seriously.
I am making fun of the idea that the "left" is not willing to persue a supposedly obvious path by which they could discredit forever the conservative right wing of the American political scene. Metamars would have us believe that Noam Chomsky is a willing apologist for G.W. Bush and R. Cheney. That is such a hoot , it would be really funny if it were not so tragically saddening that anyone would believe it.
Metamars would have you believe that Noam Chomsky is in denial. When Chomsky writes serious rebuttals to 911 truth literature, instead of dismissing it all as based on "rumors", then maybe I'll come out with a new opinion about Chomsky and 911.
