MSM reaction to WhatsApp post. Now that’s interesting

The SKWAWKBOX posted an article on Tuesday evening observing that it appears ‘Westminster Bubble’ journalists are in the habit of communicating via WhatsApp – and that, while it might be nothing, it certainly fits with the empirical evidence of co-ordinated stories and harmonised, misleading narratives we see every day from the ‘MSM’ (mainstream media).

Within minutes there was a ‘pile-on’ of mainstream journalists falling over themselves to pour scorn on the article – which said far more about many of them than about the article

They think they’re the arbiters

The article expressed a view that the idea of Westminster journalists comparing notes, ideas and angles is ‘interesting’. Very telling was the immediate leap to shout ‘no it’s not’ – the ‘journalists’ in question seem to have a very strong sense of entitlement. To think that they are the arbiters of what’s interesting.

There are many, many things in which I have no interest. Trainspotting. Reality TV. The opinions of many Westminster journalists – they’re just wrong far too consistently. Being told what line to take by Establishment editors. That kind of thing.

But I wouldn’t presume to say tell others that they shouldn’t be interested – that’s up to them. Interest is in the eye of the beholder – if I find something interesting, it is, for me. If SKWAWKBOX readers find something interesting – and viewing figures suggest they did – then it is, for them.

But some people feel they’re entitled to decide on behalf of others what they should find interesting.

Which is interesting.

They’re hypocrites

As I was interested to do so, I spent a few minutes browsing the Twitter feeds of some of those who joined in the mobbing on Tuesday evening. Almost all of them had in some way promoted the Tory/Establishment narrative about Corbyn’s supposed promise on tuition fees.

Which is 100% fake news and easily proven to be so.

So the people who were eager to scoff at a brief article with some actual evidence in it were more than happy to promote a story for which there is not only no evidence, but for whose complete fallacy there is ample.

That’s also interesting.

They’re keen

The speed and scale of response to the article was striking. Why? Why do they care so much about what this blog publishes? Why are they even looking, let alone bothering to pile in?

It suggests that they’re paying a lot of attention – and are desperate for any opportunity to disparage. Even when it means – again – ignoring or exaggerating what’s actually written.

Some form of ‘relevance envy’, perhaps?


They’re out of touch

What the bubblistas seem not to realise is that the Whatsapp snippet is interesting because most people don’t trust them. Fairly or otherwise, huge numbers of people are deeply suspicious about their output – and how they arrive at it. About their motives and about their determination to stick to certain narratives against all the facts that seem obvious to us.

Even when they’re proven embarrassingly wrong, as with the Corbyn surge in the General Election – a few moments of hand-wringing and then they’re busy trying to reframe what happened to make themselves look less deluded or disingenuous.

So of course – as the article said – the WhatsApp issue might be nothing. But that’s not the point. They could use WhatsApp, they could use emails – they could use carrier pigeons or semaphore. The point is that their output appears co-ordinated – and whether it’s by design, accident or ‘groupthink’, that makes people consider them dishonest and untrustworthy.

But too many MSM-ers appear oblivious to how out of touch they are and how irrelevant and even damaging they appear to those who reject the Establishment narrative.

That’s certainly of interest.

They’re too chummy

Another striking aspect was the theoretical spectrum of those piling on. Right-wing, left-wing, liberal – all seemingly eager to support each other.

It’s too cosy – which adds to people’s suspicion. Politics is not a game – it’s literally life and death for some people. Just as we distrust politicians who are supposed to be opponents and are too pally with each other, we distrust journalists who seem like they all attend the same social club – or went to the same university debate club or whatever.

Again, they seem oblivious.

And again, that’s interesting.

The bright side

There were a couple of brighter moments. One tweeter clearly didn’t consider the article of interest to him/her – but was at least witty about it:

And at least one journalist ‘got it’, to a degree. The New Statesman‘s ‘Mole’ put out a balanced article:


Now s/he accepted a little too much of the straw-man proposition and made more of the SKWAWKBOX’s article than the article itself did, but the premise of the article was sound and its ‘groupthink’ hypothesis was, well…


But overall it was extremely revealing about some chummy, clubby, hypocritical, entitled journalists – and how large the SKWAWKBOX seems to loom on their horizon.

The SKWAWKBOX is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your support so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.


  1. I find this article very, very interesting.

    The journalists have completely given their game away with their guilt ridden response to your original piece.

    It is clear from their response that you have hit a nerve and that these so called journalists are nothing more than well paid propagandists carrying out coordinated hit jobs at the behest of the establishment.

    That is deeply, deeply concerning. Our democracy is endangered when those tasked with challenging power are in fact its guard dogs.

  2. Considering they claim your irrelevence and your output is fake news, and that people should pay little to no attention to you, they appear to pay a lot of attention to you. Perhaps it’s because you’ve had your finger on the pulse of people outside the Westmonster bubble much more than they have. Perhaps it’s because you’ve broken stories long before they have.

    Take it as a compliment that they pay such close attention to you.

  3. Ah yes, that’s those good ‘ole Althusser’s Ideological State Apparatuses at work there – the MSM is a tool that helps ‘them’ keep ‘us’ in our places. They don’t want the likes of Skwawkbox sullying their Establishment ideological messages! They don’t want the ‘little people’ going around thinking for themselves! Who do we think we are, having the audacity to decide what is ‘interesting’?

    “the State Apparatuses which are insidious machinations controlled by the capitalist ruling ideology in the context of a class struggle to repress, exploit, extort and subjugate the ruled class.” … as Wikipedia puts it.

    1. I mean, who knows where it could all end! We could even end up with a Fairer Society! Good God! What is the world coming to!

  4. delicious.
    me thinks the ladies doth protest too much.
    why doesn’t this country get any juicy leaks anymore? America had Cablegate, its about time we had somethin fun too, imagine if a few years worth of bubblista whatsapp messages came out, oh man there wouldn’t be enough popcorn in the world 🙂

  5. dog whistle politics one has a moment of inspiration they then all rush in to embelillsh it and the bubble grows,when it bursts it is off to the next rumour a parade of charades

  6. Is it that they pay so much attention because their medium of expression – newspapers – is dying? Do they finally see that their messages are recognised for what they are – blatant pro-government propaganda? Perhaps MS journos are scared about their future because they’re being overwhelmed into insignificance by un-biased, truthful reporting.

  7. Wonder what the snitch isabel (risible) oakeshott’s take on the article is?

    I mean, if she’s one of them, she could hardly claim to be using an encrypted messaging service: ‘To protect her sources’ , could she? :thinking:

    That is, of course, if any of the other journalists trust her enough with any information…:/

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: