Topics of discussion:
How many discussions between acquaintances or even friends center around people not directly known to either party? Talking about politics, sports, movies or any other topic that is considered “mainstream” means two people talking about an invisible third with whom neither has any relation other than the unilateral one mediated by none other than mainstream media. If most things you talk about with other humans do not pertain to your or their lifes, then you’ve allowed a middle man to control your personal relationships.
Famous people do not care about you, because they neither know you and because they (usually) are not the type to care about other people (no altruism, no deep bonds). If you care about them, then you’ve created a relation that lacks any reciprocity. You are giving them attention and devotion (and hence, energy), whilst they are not giving you anything. (what they are giving is not specifically given to you as a human, but to the amorphous, multi-million heads strong mass called their “audience”)
Fakeness of tbe mainstream:
Another aspect is the sheer fakeness of the mainstream. Whatever someone as famous as a president or top actor does publicly is neither a matter of chance nor of character traits expressing themselves naturally, but the result of a whole team of public relations experts working on the best way to further an agenda. This is a show and everyone is, to a large degree, an actor. Of course, not everyone is suited for any role (a takes an “alpha male” play the trump card), but that doesn’t change the fact that whoever plays the role does play a role.
Female bloggers and youtubers that have a comparatively small audience are called “influencers” because each of them reaches many thousands (or ten thousands) of young girls, many of whom will then obtain whatever piece of clothing, assessoir or type of make-up the influencer highlighted. These blogs and channels are being financed by the very companies whose products are displayed, making the “influencer” a de-facto advertizer. If the power of media is recognized even at that level (the level at which selling things and making money is still relevant), how much more must be known on higher levels?
Narratives and the motives behind them:
Whenever a narrative is being pushed by the mainstream – a situation that is easily recognizable since it is characterized by a ridiculously disproportioned medial focus coming from a multitude of channels/outlets simultaneously – a hidden motive is present in the background. So you should ask: What effect will this have on the populace? And based on the answer to that question, a theory about the motives and goals of the forces behind the media can be constructed. What I’m saying is that the very idea of taking media reporting at face value is a mistakes that damns you to blindness. It’s not made to inform you, it’s not what it seems to be, it’s a sophisticated session of programming, an organized attempt to shape the public’s perception in order to further some agenda.
So you have to analyze it as such, think of it like the work of a film critic – he’s not caring much about the outward plot seen on the screen, but about what the director wanted to say with it, what he wanted his audience to feel. Or think of it like the work of an art critic – he isn’t describing the objects in the painting (everyone could do that), he’s describing the effect this painting has on the viewer and the effect the artist intended it to have on him.