>>90438761. Do you agree that the MSM has synchronised messages and similar wording when reporting on QAnon? Does this appear to support or refute the #FakeNews hypothesis?
2. Do you agree there appears to be little to no diversity of editorial approaches and opinions on Q or POTUS? How do you make sense of this near unanimity across the MSM?
3. The MSM has not reported on the specific content of the Q drops, only referring to them indirectly. How do you account for this journalistic choice?
4. The MSM has not encouraged the public to examine the associated open source intelligence by QAnons (e.g. the daily “notables”). What does this say about their attitude to independent thought?
5. The MSM won’t discuss the validity of the evidence of a Q-Trump link (i.e. operational semantics that are a question of proof that would stand up in court). Why do you think this is not covered in detail?
6. The MSM doesn’t mention how Q tells you to reject any authority and to always research and think for yourself. How do you make sense of this in the context of the mass media’s authority and trustworthiness?
7. The MSM has failed to analyse ways in which Q drops have foreshadowed major events. Why do you think this might be?
8. The MSM rarely discusses psychological warfare, the art of deception, and the use of disinformation; and if it does, typically ends with a piece denigrating Q and/or POTUS. Which hypothesis does this appear to support?
9. The MSM offers only a binary “Q is all true” vs “Q is a larp” (i.e. a hoax), rather than focusing on the content of the Q drops. How does this relate to each of the two hypotheses?
