[xphos]

> Hate (well, love) to break it to you but the Exxon thing was exposed by... One person, doing research.

So she discover climate change alone without data publically available from Scripts, the EPA, and NOAA. She just one day knew without the work of scientist who came before her and discovered the green house gases. And the eneromus media campaigns that backed Al Gore inconvienent truth? Because remember she did all of this in 2015!

The whole point that is being made is that it was not just that one protagonist hero that just solved everything. Because Scientist, Politicians, and the media all partcipated in exposing climate change. Neela, and trust me i appreciate her going specifically after Exxon, do this as part of institutions that allow this investigation to exists. Not to just stick it to them. Malovalent people and organizations exists but in your board stroke of saying main stream is bad builds an enviroment where it is impossible to do good things. Because what is good is not obvious, what is corrupt is not obvious.

Claiming it simple so we just need to not trust any corrupt institituions is corrosive. We can have a diference on what to do about the current sitution but institutions can must exists that demand we argee and what the sitution is, that has to be non-partisan and hardlining the 'do you own research bit' makes describing a shared reality partisan because anything you do like you can 'do your own research' and discover that you are 100% right.

> Mainstream media isn't ever going to tell you how to end the media monopoly. The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.

Also ironically they did and have, media was a large reason Sherman Anti-Trust act became viable. It becoming mainstream thinking, that Monopolies are bad, was forged by Economists and Engineers propogated and communicated by media. An opinion forged by collective research and understanding, and most important consenses building of a shared reality.

And also I am not saying do your own research is bad inherently but rather the narriative that follows it is, is that scientist did not do effective research, media did not expose lies but hid them, the list goes on. You can absolutely not have that perspective but its the banashee that will follow you when you hardline distrust in institutions. Because the idea doesn't choose because obvious is anything you want it to be. We've seen it before, Exxon discredited insitutions in the government as not knowing the science, its what allows the current adminstration to protect pedophiles. When the government is lying we need to call it out but their is no greater threat society than stoking mass distrust in carciture instutitions.

P.S. I like the back in forth and respect the frustration you have but I think there is a mix of factural holes in the narative you have especially around climate change.