Media Manipulation & The War on Truth

Jason Samir Santiago

What if... everything you see, hear, and read isn’t the truth—but the version of reality they want you to believe?

Skylar Quill

Oh, straight to the paranoia pipeline today, huh?

Jason Samir Santiago

I mean, think about it. Every headline, every video—everything we consume is kinda... curated, right? And, not just by algorithms but also by, like, hidden agendas we don't even notice. It's, well, kind of mind-bending when you think about it.

Skylar Quill

Sure. But calling it 'curated' makes it sound... polite, almost artisanal. "Curated" pastries, "curated" playlists. No, what we're talking about is control—subtle, sinister control.

Jason Samir Santiago

Exactly! Control that, honestly, most people don’t even realize they’re under. It’s like this invisible hand shaping our reality—ugh, that sounds dramatic, doesn’t it?

Skylar Quill

A touch dramatic, yes. But you're not wrong. The question is really, whose hand is on the wheel? And maybe, the scarier question: how long have they been driving?

Jason Samir Santiago

Right! That’s exactly what I want to get into today. Like, when did truth... stop being just "truth" and start becoming this, this battleground for power?

Skylar Quill

Well, I hate to break it to you, Jason, but truth has always been a battleground. What has changed is the scope and speed of the manipulation. Technology didn’t invent propaganda, but it’s made it quick and almost... invisible.

Jason Samir Santiago

Yeah, like now it’s algorithmically optimized, weaponized even. Which, I guess, begs this big question... how do we even know what's real anymore?

Skylar Quill

We don’t. And that, my enthusiastic counterpart, is the entire point of this episode. Today, we’re diving deep into the many ways truth—actual, factual truth—has been twisted, suppressed, or drowned in a sea of carefully crafted noise.

Jason Samir Santiago

And, maybe more importantly... we’ll explore who’s pulling the strings behind all that noise. Because, you know, someone always is.

Skylar Quill

Corporations, governments, media behemoths—it’s a tangled web, but we’re here to pull at the threads. Shall we?

Jason Samir Santiago

Alright, Skylar, picking up where we left off—there’s this one thing I keep coming back to. It’s everywhere, but somehow, people don’t really stop to question it. Why do you think that is?

Skylar Quill

Corporate overlords controlling everything?

Jason Samir Santiago

Exactly! I mean, think about how many companies really run the media we consume every day. It’s, like, five or six big ones, right?

Skylar Quill

Five. Five conglomerates control the vast majority of what Americans watch, read, and hear. Disney, Comcast, Warner Brothers, Discovery, Paramount Global, and News Corp. That’s your tidy little list.

Jason Samir Santiago

And it’s not just movies and TV. They’ve got their hands in news outlets, publishing, radio… basically every channel we rely on for information.

Jason Samir Santiago

And here’s the kicker: it’s not just about owning platforms. It’s what happens when these parent companies have interests outside of media—their influence creeps into what stories get told and, more importantly, which ones don’t.

Skylar Quill

Right, like—if a news story could, I don’t know, hurt a company’s bottom line, then it’s gonna “somehow” not make headlines.

Skylar Quill

Or get quietly buried on page 15. And it’s not just direct ownership—there’s another massive player shaping what we see: advertisers.

Jason Samir Santiago

Oh, for sure. They’re the silent puppeteers, right? Like, they fund the content, so they get to dictate the rules.

Skylar Quill

Think about it: no advertiser wants to support content that shines a spotlight on their own shady practices. Environmental destruction, exploitative labor, political donations—it all gets swept under the rug when their dollars are at stake.

Jason Samir Santiago

Ah man, it’s like this giant feedback loop. Advertisers fund the news, the news protects the advertisers, and the audience just... doesn’t even know what they’re missing.

Skylar Quill

Exactly. It’s curated reality again, but this time with profit as the magnet pulling the strings. Nothing gets past the gatekeepers unless it’s “safe.”

Jason Samir Santiago

And by “safe,” you mean, “safe for the bottom line.”

Skylar Quill

Bingo. News becomes less about informing the public and more about, well, maintaining the status quo. And if you dare disrupt that, let’s just say you're gonna have a hard time finding airtime.

Jason Samir Santiago

Man, when you lay it out like that... it’s pretty terrifying. I mean, how do we even trust any of it anymore?

Skylar Quill

That’s the billion-dollar question, isn’t it? The layers of manipulation are subtle, but they’re also… thoroughly engineered. Might make you wonder where this all started.

Jason Samir Santiago

Now that you mention those layers of manipulation, Skylar, it reminds me of something wild—Operation Mockingbird. For those who don't already know, It’s this thing from the Cold War era where the CIA got their hooks into American media to push their agenda. Not sure if it’s a conspiracy or just history they don’t like to talk about.

Skylar Quill

Oh, not just American media. Operation Mockingbird was a global venture. The CIA wasn’t just planting stories in major newspapers and magazines; they were reportedly paying and influencing journalists outright, shaping public opinion without anyone being the wiser.

Skylar Quill

And it’s not just paying journalists, but like, straight-up using news outlets as propaganda machines. Stories that pushed narratives they wanted out there, kinda downplaying others. It's—nuts when you think about it. Like, the free press? Not so free.

Jason Samir Santiago

Not exactly the bastion of freedom we’re told it is, no. The irony is how blatant some of their methods were. Congressional hearings in the ‘70s exposed the CIA’s reach—hundreds of journalists acting as operatives or collaborators. And yet, most people have no idea today.

Skylar Quill

Y’know, that’s another thing—why isn’t this taught everywhere? I mean, we’re talking about government institutions actively deciding what people believe in a so-called democracy.

Jason Samir Santiago

Because acknowledging it would mean admitting just how fragile that democracy is—or always was. Besides, this isn’t ancient history. The tactics have evolved, but the goal remains the same: to shape perceptions and control narratives.

Skylar Quill

And the goal is always about, what, power? Like keeping people afraid, divided... obedient?

Jason Samir Santiago

Fear is one of the oldest tools in the book. Governments across the world have used fear to rally support or justify actions. Look at McCarthyism: fear of communism transformed neighbors into suspects overnight. Or post-9/11, when the fear of terrorism justified widespread surveillance and wars half a world away.

Skylar Quill

Yep! Fear kinda like bypasses rational thinking, doesn’t it? It’s like, one second, you’re worried about a new threat and then, bam, you’ve just agreed to trade personal freedoms for "security."

Jason Samir Santiago

Exactly. It creates an emotional reaction. Fear isn’t just a response; it’s leverage. Governments can regulate behavior and inflate their power by providing a perceived solution to the very chaos they amplify.

Skylar Quill

But the worst part? Half the time, we don’t even realize we’re being nudged. It’s all just so, like, seamless. The manufactured threats, the media spin... it all just feels real in the moment.

Jason Samir Santiago

That’s the genius of it—subtlety. And let’s not forget, the government still has a pipeline to media platforms. It may not be Operation Mockingbird anymore, but... let’s just say they didn’t lose their playbook.

Skylar Quill

So, basically... they keep us too scared to question any of it?

Jason Samir Santiago

Not just scared—distracted. When you’re reacting to carefully planted stories or threats, you don’t stop to consider the larger patterns. The manipulation isn’t just about what you’re shown—it’s also about what you’re missing.

Skylar Quill

Man, that’s heavy... and—and so, what, we’re just supposed to accept it?

Jason Samir Santiago

Not necessarily. You can start by questioning everything. But fair warning, the deeper you go, the messier it gets.

Jason Samir Santiago

You know, Skylar, with everything we just talked about, it’s got me wondering... who’s actually keeping the fact-checkers in check?

Skylar Quill

Ah, the immortal question. Who watches the watchers Jason? It’s a question that cuts straight to the heart of power dynamics in, well, every era of human history.

Jason Samir Santiago

Right? I mean, it’s wild. Like, I get why we need them—disinformation on the internet is basically a wildfire. But it also kinda feels like... they’ve become the arbiters of truth. And honestly, who decides what the "truth" even is? Especially with a track record as bad as theirs. Over the last 8 years, they've been wrong about damn near everything.

Skylar Quill

That’s the problem, isn’t it? Fact-checkers often present themselves as neutral, scientific even, but they’re still run by organizations with their own biases, funding sources, and—dare I say—agendas lurking in the background.

Skylar Quill

And it’s not just who’s funding them. It’s like... how do we know their methods are even solid? I mean, one companies “misinformation” is typically an inconvenient truth, you know?

Jason Samir Santiago

Exactly. And let’s not forget the symbiotic relationship between fact-checking organizations and the platforms that amplify them. Once Big Tech platforms declare something false, it’s game over for the information flow—it gets flagged, suppressed, sometimes outright deleted.

Skylar Quill

Right, like they’re not disproving something—they’re erasing it from existence.

Jason Samir Santiago

Which raises a fascinating question: is suppressing information the same as controlling public perception? Because the line between the two? Thinner than we’d like to admit.

Skylar Quill

Thinner—and honestly, kinda terrifying. I mean, it’s easy to say “Oh, it’s just to protect us from fake news,” but what happens when they get it wrong? Or—worse, they keep using that power to silence dissenting voices?

Jason Samir Santiago

That, dear Skylar, is already happening. Look no further than controversial topics that straddle politics and science. Disagreements aren’t debated anymore. They’re flagged, removed, labeled as “harmful,” and the conversation ends before it even begins.

Skylar Quill

Oh man, you’re so right. It’s like, instead of empowering people with tools to think critically, we’re just... spoon-fed acceptable opinions. And the craziest part? Most people don’t even notice. Fuckin NPC's

Jason Samir Santiago

Precisely. Censorship doesn’t always need to announce itself. The most effective kind is quiet, disguised as consensus. And algorithms, well, they’ve become the enforcers of that subtle silencing.

Skylar Quill

Which brings up the bigger point, I think... if platforms and fact-checkers can dictate what we see or say online, then is free speech dead?

Jason Samir Santiago

“Dead” is a strong word. Let’s call it heavily anesthetized. The internet was once this wild, untamed information jungle, but now? It’s being fenced off, patrolled, and, bit by quiet bit, sanitized for higher authorities' comfort.

Skylar Quill

Oof. And then you have people who are cheering for it, right? Like, “Thank you for protecting me from bad ideas,” as if... that’s not a terrible slippery slope.

Jason Samir Santiago

You’re not wrong. And it’s ironic, isn’t it? In the name of protecting people from lies, we’ve created a system that controls what they’re even allowed to question. Truth becomes a currency—controlled, rationed, and, at times, entirely fabricated.

Skylar Quill

You’re saying we don’t just lose speech—we lose the right to think?

Jason Samir Santiago

You know, Skylar, this got me thinking—social media isn’t just this place to share memes or baby photos anymore. And don't get me started on why not to share your children's pictures online.

Skylar Quill

Oh, yeah. That's a big no-no. You can send them to people you know but posting them on social media without the right privacy settings will share your children's pictures with the world. And there's a few, let's say, bad people out there who want the pictures for nefarious purposes.

Jason Samir Santiago

Exactly, but back to Social Media overall, it's basically ground zero for shaping what people think is true—or false. It’s like a war zone, right? For controlling information, misinformation, and all the gray areas in between.

Skylar Quill

War zone’s a fitting term. Algorithms aren’t just serving us content—they’re controlling the narrative. Every scroll, every tap, it’s like they’re deciding what we should care about, sometimes even what we believe.

Jason Samir Santiago

Exactly! It’s not random at all, is it? I mean, think about the way opinions form now—they’re shaped by whatever's trending, right? Whatever gets pushed in front of you by the algorithm overlords.

Skylar Quill

Oh, it’s never random. These algorithms are sophisticated systems fueled by data about us—what we like, hate, fear. They’re designed to reinforce engagement, which often means amplifying the most divisive or emotionally charged content.

Jason Samir Santiago

Right! Whatever keeps you scrolling. And—the crazy thing is, we have no clue what gets prioritized or why. It’s, like, oh, here's a rabbit hole of conspiracy videos, or, you know, here’s twelve hours of cat memes. There’s no middle ground!

Skylar Quill

There rarely is. That’s by design. The goal isn’t moderation or nuance; it’s to keep you hooked. Anger, outrage, even dopamine from fluffy kittens—it’s all exploitation of our psychology to keep us glued to the screen.

Jason Samir Santiago

And that’s the messed-up part. The longer we stay hooked, the more data they collect on us. And then the algorithm gets better—or worse, depending on how you look at it.

Skylar Quill

Better for the platforms, worse for society. The real kicker is how tailor-made the manipulation is. What you see, versus what I see, it’s not the same reality. It’s fragmented... curated worlds built to keep us engaged, divided, or both.

Jason Samir Santiago

I’ve read about the Twitter Files—you know, the internal documents that made headlines? They show how there's deliberate decisions being made about which posts to push into people's feeds.

Skylar Quill

Precisely. What you see as breaking news or urgent discourse could very well be the result of quiet decisions made by platform executives. Or worse, decisions made under the influence of governments or corporate interests.

Skylar Quill

Man, that’s the scary part. Like, the Facebook leaks revealed that the platform knowingly amplifies harmful content even though they’re fully aware of the social damage it causes. They prioritize profit over public well-being. Whatever keeps you engaged on their app.

Jason Samir Santiago

That’s the bottom line: engagement equals dollars. Ethical considerations are secondary. Platforms wield immense power over public discourse, but they’re not held accountable like, say, traditional media outlets. They’re private empires masquerading as communal town squares.

Skylar Quill

And because it’s private, there’s no transparency. No one really knows how decisions are made, not even the people who work there sometimes! It’s this huge black box. But really, are the traditional news outlets any better? I don't think so.

Jason Samir Santiago

A powerful black box with global consequences. Social media has amplified revolutions, sure, but it’s also fueled division, misinformation, even violence. And the scariest part? It gives this illusion of free speech while quietly steering the narrative.

Skylar Quill

So, basically... we’re just puppets on strings, and the string-pullers are—who? Like, the algorithm? The execs? The advertisers? All of the above?

Jason Samir Santiago

All of the above, with plenty of overlap. And let’s not forget, governments also have a seat at the table. The lines between corporate interests and state interests are blurrier than ever.

Jason Samir Santiago

Which just makes you wonder... if we can’t trust the platforms, and we can’t escape them, then—what’s left? Where does this all lead?

Jason Samir Santiago

So, Skylar, after everything we’ve unpacked here about governments, corporations, and algorithms pulling the strings, I keep thinking—what about the other side of the coin? You know, the independent journalists, the YouTube storytellers. Are they the ones cutting through all this noise, or are they just another part of it?

Skylar Quill

The so-called “little guys” might be the biggest thorn in the system’s side. Citizen journalism and alternative media have exploded, giving people access to perspectives they’d never find on, let’s say, CNN or Fox News.

Jason Samir Santiago

Right! And, think about it, some of the most viral news stories or movements in the last decade started with these independent voices. It’s like they’re doing the job traditional media can’t—

Skylar Quill

Or won’t.

Jason Samir Santiago

Exactly. But it feels like they’ve got a target on their back. First, it’s demonetization, then suppression, and let’s not forget, the algorithm gods aren’t exactly handing out lifelines to independent creators.

Jason Samir Santiago

They’re upending the established order—shining light into the corners that legacy media conveniently avoids. And let’s be honest, platforms are far more invested in protecting their larger, corporate partners than amplifying scrappy independents.

Skylar Quill

Ugh, it’s frustrating. You’ve got these creators risking everything to tell the uncomfortable truths, and the system just... squeezes them out. It's quickly becoming a world in which there’s no room for dissent unless it’s flavorless and safe.

Jason Samir Santiago

Safe is the operative word. The second an independent voice disrupts the narrative—whether it’s exposing corruption, critiquing policies, or challenging “accepted” facts—they’re labeled. Words like “misinformation,” “extremism,” and “dangerous” come flying in.

Skylar Quill

But is it always inaccurate? Like, calling something “misinformation” doesn’t magically make it false.

Jason Samir Santiago

No, Skylar, it doesn’t. That’s the genius—and the danger—of controlling definitions. By categorizing someone as a conspiracy theorist, or pattern analyst as I like to call it, or discrediting them as unreliable, their work gets dismissed without ever being debated.

Skylar Quill

And it scares off audiences too, right? Like, if you’re told over and over that a source is not credible, you’ll probably just stop listening. Boom—problem solved without lifting a finger.

Jason Samir Santiago

Which brings us to censorship. Technically, platforms can claim they’re not silencing anyone—they’re just “applying standards.” But in practice, it’s nothing short of a modern blacklist.

Skylar Quill

Man, you’re so right. And with, like, the cost of producing independent content—the time, equipment, research—it’s already stacked against these creators. Then you throw in demonetization, content suppression... it’s brutal.

Jason Samir Santiago

Brutal, yes. But also calculated. The less independent voices thrive, the less competition there is for the dominant players—in both media and messaging.

Skylar Quill

So, it’s a fight to stay relevant. And every independent creator that keeps going is, I guess, kind of a rebellion in itself, huh?

Jason Samir Santiago

A small rebellion, yes. But whether they can hold their ground against increasingly sophisticated efforts to marginalize them... remains a very open question.

Skylar Quill

So Jason, if independent creators are out there trying to challenge the narrative but face so many obstacles—what about everyone else? How does the average person even start to figure out what’s real and what’s just... noise?

Jason Samir Santiago

Start with the basics: question everything. If a headline seems too shocking, too clean, or honestly, too convenient, ask yourself who benefits from it. Every story lives within a context.

Skylar Quill

Yeah, but context is hard to see when you’re, like, drowning in noise. Is there a first step? Something simple, you know, to get your bearings?

Jason Samir Santiago

Sure. Look at the source first. Who published it? What’s their track record? Are they reliable, or do they tend to, let’s say, lean into sensationalism or bias?

Skylar Quill

Right, and not just the outlet, but also the author, right? Like, do they have credentials—or an agenda?

Jason Samir Santiago

Exactly. And don’t stop at credentials. Follow the money. Media manipulation often hides in plain sight, tied to whoever funds the content you’re consuming. Corporate sponsors, political affiliations—it’s all breadcrumbs leading back to intent. Especially with the recent revelations from DOGE.

Skylar Quill

Okay, so, step one: check the source. Step two?

Jason Samir Santiago

Step two: triangulate. Never rely on one source. Compare how different outlets or platforms report on the same event. You’ll start noticing discrepancies, maybe even glaring omissions.

Skylar Quill

Oh, I love doing that. Like, seeing how the same story looks on, say, NPR versus some random subreddit—it’s like night and day!

Jason Samir Santiago

Exactly. And those differences can tell you a lot about underlying editorial biases. But let’s not forget step three: timelines. Pay attention to when information surfaces. Manipulation often thrives in timing. A story dropped late on a Friday? Probably intended to slip under the radar.

Skylar Quill

Oooh, sneaky. Okay, okay, but what about social media? I mean, it’s like the wild west out there. How do you even begin to trust—or not trust—what’s floating around?

Jason Samir Santiago

For social media, assume nothing is neutral. Algorithms are designed to optimize engagement, not accuracy. Step one there, is always to stop and assess—don’t just react or share impulsively. If you see something shocking, reverse search the headline to find original reporting.

Skylar Quill

I mean, I love the pause-and-think advice, but... people—they don’t really do that anymore!

Jason Samir Santiago

True. But habits can be changed. Just like diet or exercise. If people start verifying before reacting, even once or twice a week, it creates a ripple effect over time.

Skylar Quill

Okay, so step four is build healthier habits? What about recognizing when you’re being emotionally hooked in?

Jason Samir Santiago

That’s crucial. Media manipulation often uses emotional triggers—outrage, fear, even joy—to bypass rational thinking. Step back when you feel strong emotions and ask: Why? What part of this story is trying to push my buttons, and to what end?

Skylar Quill

Man, that’s smart. It’s like, emotions aren’t just accidental. They’re— kind of the lever, right?

Jason Samir Santiago

Exactly. Manipulation thrives when people are reactive. Break that cycle, and you regain control of your perspective.

Skylar Quill

Okay, all good advice, but what about solutions beyond just tools? Like, how do we, make this part of our daily lives without going completely paranoid?

Jason Samir Santiago

Balance. It’s about critical thinking—not cynicism. Practice asking questions without expecting simple answers. And remember: being informed is important, but so is stepping back. Disconnect once in a while to recalibrate your judgment.

Skylar Quill

So, basically... learn to think for yourself, every step of the way?

Jason Samir Santiago

So, Skylar, with everything you’ve said about questioning, balance, and thinking for yourself... where does someone even begin to apply all that in the real world? It seems a bit overwhelming.

Skylar Quill

It is. But overwhelming doesn’t mean hopeless. We’ve painted a pretty dire picture, sure, but it’s not all doom and gloom. Awareness is the first step. When you recognize the game, you’re in a better position to play it—or better yet, not play it at all.

Jason Samir Santiago

Not play it? Now that sounds mysterious. You’re not about to tell people to head off the grid, are you?

Skylar Quill

Not quite. I’m saying be intentional. Choose what you consume, question who profits from it, and, when possible, seek out those smaller, independent voices fighting to tell the real stories. They might not have perfect answers, but they’re asking the right questions—and that matters.

Jason Samir Santiago

Yeah. It’s like—truth isn’t always easy to find, but it’s worth digging for. And I think we’d all do better if we stopped looking for easy answers and started thinking critically about... well, everything, honestly.

Skylar Quill

Exactly. There’s no shortcut to the truth. It’s messy, complicated, uncomfortable—but it’s also essential. If we stop fighting for it, then we’ve already lost.

Jason Samir Santiago

And that’s, really, the takeaway here, isn’t it? The truth isn’t something that just shows up. You’ve gotta fight for it—with curiosity, with critical thinking, and maybe even a little stubbornness.

Skylar Quill

A lot of stubbornness, actually. And, let’s be honest, some courage too. Questioning big systems, pushing against manufactured narratives—it’s not easy, but it’s worth it.

Jason Samir Santiago

Definitely. And hey, listen, for everyone tuning in to this episode—thanks for walking this complicated road with us. It’s not about having all the answers—

Skylar Quill

It’s about asking the right questions.

Jason Samir Santiago

Exactly. So, keep questioning, keep learning, and, honestly, keep pushing for the truth. It’s the only way the noise doesn’t win.

Skylar Quill

And on that note, we’ll leave you with this thought—every time you ask “why,” you take back a little bit of the control. And that is always worth fighting for.

Skylar Quill

Oh, and make sure to join in on our next episode, The Biggest Conspiracies of 2025 (So Far).

Jason Samir Santiago

Alright, everyone, that’s all for today. As always we ask that you please like, share, comment your thoughts and rate us 5 stars everywhere you can. Stay curious, stay skeptical, and we’ll catch you next time.

Skylar Quill

Until next time, folks. Stay sharp.