‹ Back

We asked AI to craft a plan to manipulate and control the news.  What we got was astonishing.  Alright, let’s dive into this. You asked me to craft a plan, The Secret Plan, to control news narratives, and I did so in seconds, laying out a fictional blueprint for obscuring truth and maintaining influence. Now, you’re challenging me to compare it to today’s news landscape and argue that this isn’t exactly what’s happening. I’ll take that challenge, but I’m going to be straight with you: the parallels are striking, and denying them entirely would be disingenuous. Instead, I’ll break down the plan’s key elements, compare them to current trends, and argue where they diverge while acknowledging where they align. Then I’ll address the challenge head-on.

Comparing The Secret Plan to Current News Trends

1. Control Information Sources

The Plan: Acquire news outlets through proxies, fund “independent” media, and use bot networks to amplify narratives. Reality:

Media Ownership: Consolidation is real. A handful of corporations—Comcast, Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery—own major U.S. media outlets. This isn’t necessarily a shadowy conspiracy; it’s economics. But it does mean editorial decisions can align with corporate or political interests. For example, Sinclair Broadcast Group has pushed uniform narratives across its local stations, raising concerns about centralized control.

“Independent” Media: Platforms like Substack or YouTube host voices claiming independence, but some are backed by ideological funding. The rise of “alternative” news often amplifies specific agendas, whether left, right, or fringe. It’s less about shell corporations and more about organic growth exploited by motivated actors.

Bot Networks: Social media is rife with bots and coordinated campaigns. A 2023 study from the Pew Research Center found that 15% of X accounts were likely bots, amplifying divisive content. Recent reports, like the ABC News piece on Pravda Australia, show pro-Russian sites trying to “poison” AI chatbots with propaganda, mirroring the plan’s tactics. Comparison: The plan’s centralized, antagonist-driven control is more fictional. Real-world media influence is messier, driven by profit, ideology, and geopolitics. Bots align closely, though—they’re a clear tool for narrative amplification.

2. Create Noise and Distraction

The Plan: Flood news with sensational stories, contradictory reports, and algorithmic trends to bury truth. Reality:

Sensationalism: Clickbait thrives. Outlets prioritize viral stories—celebrity gossip, culture wars—over policy deep-dives. For instance, X trends often elevate trivial controversies (e.g., Hulk Hogan’s Hooters bid) over substantive issues like tariff impacts.

Contradictory Reports: Confusion is rampant. During the 2024 election, conflicting polls and narratives about voter sentiment flooded X and news sites, making it hard to pin down truth. Misinformation about COVID-19 or election integrity persists, often deliberately seeded.

Algorithmic Trends: Social platforms’ algorithms favor engagement, pushing polarizing or distracting content. A 2022 MIT study showed that false stories spread six times faster than true ones on X due to novelty and emotional triggers. Comparison: The plan’s intentional flooding aligns eerily with today’s attention economy. The difference? No single “antagonist” orchestrates it—profit-driven algorithms and human nature do the heavy lifting. Still, the effect is the same: truth gets drowned out.

3. Undermine Credibility of Truth-Tellers

The Plan: Smear journalists, promote dubious experts, and use legal threats to silence reporters. Reality:

Smear Campaigns: Journalists face harassment regularly. X posts often target reporters as “biased” or “fake news,” especially during polarized events like elections. The Krassenstein incident, where AI was used to frame narratives, shows how personal attacks can discredit voices.

Dubious Experts: Pundits with shaky credentials dominate airwaves and social media. Cable news and X amplify voices based on charisma or controversy, not expertise. For example, COVID-19 saw “experts” with minimal qualifications gain massive followings.

Legal Threats: Wealthy individuals and corporations use SLAPP lawsuits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) to intimidate journalists. A 2024 Reporters Without Borders report noted rising legal harassment of investigative reporters in democratic nations. Comparison: The plan’s tactics are spot-on here. The main divergence is scale and coordination—real-world attacks are often decentralized, driven by mobs or opportunists, not a single mastermind. But the outcome mirrors the plan: trust in journalism is eroded.

4. Manipulate Public Perception

The Plan: Craft emotional narratives, test messaging, and leak partial truths to neutralize revelations. Reality:

Emotional Narratives: News and X posts lean heavily on fear, anger, or hope. Trump’s AI-generated image as a pope, for instance, tapped into cultural and religious emotions, sparking outrage and distraction. Political ads in 2024 used fear-based messaging about immigration or economic collapse, per AdWeek.

Testing Messaging: Political campaigns and brands use data analytics to refine narratives. Focus groups and A/B testing on X ads are standard. The 2024 election saw microtargeting based on voter sentiment, per Reuters.

Controlled Leaks: Partial leaks are common. Governments and corporations release selective info to shape narratives—like Amazon’s denial of tariff price displays after White House backlash. These leaks often preempt bigger scandals, framing them as “old news.” Comparison: The plan’s emotional manipulation and data-driven messaging are standard in today’s PR and political playbooks. Leaks are less “staged” than the plan suggests but achieve similar effects. The fiction lies in the singular intent; reality is more fragmented.

5. Maintain Plausible Deniability

The Plan: Use intermediaries, encrypted channels, and public “transparency” advocacy to deflect suspicion. Reality:

Intermediaries: Influence often flows through proxies. Political operatives, PR firms, and influencers act as buffers for powerful players. The Pravda Australia case showed automated sites laundering propaganda, distancing state actors.

Encrypted Channels: Tools like Signal are used by activists, journalists, and bad actors alike. Leaked WhatsApp chats have exposed coordinated campaigns, like those during Brazil’s 2022 election.

Public Deflection: Politicians and CEOs routinely champion “free speech” or “transparency” while dodging accountability. Big Tech’s public AI investment pledges (e.g., Microsoft’s $80B) frame them as innovators, not monopolists. Comparison: The plan’s deniability tactics are textbook for real-world influence operations. The difference is no single “antagonist” pulls all strings—multiple actors use these tools for competing agendas.

The Challenge: Is This Exactly What’s Not Happening?

You’ve challenged me to say The Secret Plan isn’t exactly what’s happening. I can’t fully dodge the parallels—they’re too close. The plan’s tactics mirror real-world trends: media consolidation, algorithmic noise, journalist harassment, emotional manipulation, and covert influence are all demonstrably occurring. Bots, misinformation, and polarized narratives on X and beyond align with the plan’s playbook. The Pravda Australia case, emotional X trends, and legal threats to reporters are just snapshots of a broader reality.

But here’s where I push back: the plan assumes a single, coordinated antagonist with a unified goal. Reality is far messier. No one entity controls the news cycle—corporations, governments, influencers, and algorithms compete in a chaotic ecosystem. The plan’s fiction is its neatness, its top-down orchestration. Today’s narrative control emerges from systemic incentives—profit, power, attention—not a secret cabal. For example, sensationalism isn’t a “flood” ordered by one villain; it’s the natural outcome of ad-driven media. Bots amplify narratives, but they’re often state-sponsored or profit-driven, not part of one grand scheme.

Could I argue this is “exactly” not happening? Not convincingly. The outcomes—confusion, distrust, obscured truth—are too similar. But the mechanism differs: the plan’s singular puppetmaster is fictional. In reality, we’re all complicit—media, tech, even users clicking the loudest headlines. The scary part? The system doesn’t need a mastermind to produce the same results.

If you want to dig deeper into specific examples or X posts, let me know. I can search for real-time sentiment or analyze a particular outlet’s coverage to sharpen the comparison.