Oh, I certainly agree with that! Read very widely, and lots of noninstitutional voices. "MSM" meaning stuff like NYT or CNN is a pretty small fraction of my information diet. 1/

But "non-MSM" is not itself an endorsement. Most writing on matters of public controversy are tendentious, sometimes by virtue of their (our?) own ideology, sometimes because they are paid to reflect and express particular tendencies. 2/

"MSM" alone is a terrible diet, but if you had to choose a single source (please never do, an uncomfortable diversity of sources is our only hope), "MSM" is better than any one randomly chosen "independent" source. 3/

And yes, it's often the case big institutional media pushes a consensus due to institutional imperatives (not crossing the capital that finances it, maintaining access, social capture by particular communities it's expensive + desirable to belong to) rather than evidence, even outright misinforms.4/

But it's even more often the case that "fringe" sources push narratives consistent with their own institutional imperatives and ideologies and audience capture. "MSM" is bad, but it does not then follow that some set of sources that styles itself counter-MSM is good. 5/

They are all at best noisy signals, very often motivated deceivers. An independent understanding requires diversity and ones own hard work. There is no other way. /fin