I’m not sure you can categorize an entire network or publication as MSM or non-MSM. For example, I consider the MSNBC news coverage to be MSM. But The Rachel Maddow Show (which I watch regularly) has a definite political lean, and therefore I wouldn’t consider it MSM. Same with op-ed articles from otherwise mainstream newspapers.
So you are unaware of any news outlet that is not “Main Stream.” Fair enough.
But if that were true, why would he not just use the term “media”?
It’s like complaining about “organized religion”: you can’t complain about “religion” because that makes you a monster or whatever, so you qualify it in some way to point your opinion at the part of the thing you dislike. People can’t complain about “media,” because the response to that is, “fine, no television, internet, radio, magazines, newspapers, or movies for you.” So they complain about the kind of media us sheeple consume, the “main stream media.”
It’s linguistic double-think to make it sound like they’re on the side of a opposition that doesn’t really exist, like when they came up with “pro-life” to make anyone who wasn’t on their side sound like the must be “pro-death.”
I’m thinking they won’t name the media they actually get their info from because they are ashamed-if they admitted which media they follow they would be ridiculed. Of course, I am willing to be proven wrong.
To me the term “Main Stream Media”(MSM) refers to the Old Guard of the news: ABC, NBC and CBS News. The major newspapers such as New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and other big city newspapers. I’d even add CNN at this point. (TIME and Newsweek magazine used to be part of this but they have deteriorated in quality over years.) Also LIFE magazine was a big part of MSM for a long time.
Pesornally, I’d parse the media as follows:
1.The “Main Stream Media”. As I described above.
-
The Right-Wing Media(RWM). Fox News. The RWM radio shows such as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Mark Levin. etc. The RWM magazines such as (the now defunct) Weekly Standard, the Federalist, Front Page Magazine, etc. Websites such as Daily Wire, WorldNet Daily, Townhall, PJ Media.
-
The Left-Wing Media(LWM). MSNBC, in my opinion, straddles the line between MSM and LWM. LWM magazines such as Mother Jones, Harpers, The Nation, etc. LWM Websites such as Alternet, Raw Story, Mediaite, Thinkprogress, The Huffington Post, etc.
-
Libertarian Media. Not as big of footprint of the previous two. There’s Reason magazine and website. Lew Rockwell.com. Numerous blogs of which including Claire Wolfe’s and The Price of Liberty.
-
Sports Media. This is largely an extension of the MSM.
-
Tabloid Media. It covers celebrity gossip in a highly sensationalized and often over-the-top way . I’d also include a lot of the true crime shows under this banner that sensationalize real life crimes in order to attract ratings. Unfortunately this type of things creeps into the MSM a lot in the recent years. I blame the coverage of OJ Simpson trial for that.
-
Conspiracy Media. Infowars and Alex Jones for example. Unfortunately this seems to be an increasing source of news for some people and the Alt Right seems to be trust a lot of them over traditional right wing media.
There also a lot of niche niche markets media that cover one subject extensively. For example, The Wrestling Observer, The Pro Wrestling Torch, and PWinsider all cover professional wrestling. And other sports and hobbies have magazines and websites dedicated to them exclusively.
It’s obvious that the term is pretty much deictic and has little purely referential meaning. It’s like asking, “Who is a ‘pain-in-the-ass,’ and who isn’t?”
I think the actual conceit is: “Everyone else is stupid and I’m the only one who knows the real truth. Just because I do.”
What you think is mainstream, and what you think is not, depends on where on the political axis you are. Since I think WillFarnaby’s political axis is perpendicular to that of most people, of course he’s going to regard almost everything as mainstream. 
You are not alone; I use it descriptively, too. I think it should include the editorial arms of large media orgs, too – except for those editorialists who chose to reject the label (or the norms of those institutions). You can express political opinions and be part of the MSM, but I don’t think you can say “the MSM is Fake News” and be in the MSM.
So to me, Jake Tapper, Chris Wallace, Judith Miller, Newsweek, Maureen Dowd, and the WSJ editorial page are/were MSM; Sean Hannity, *The Nation, *and The New Yorker aren’t.
Yeah, I’m thinking the CBN news operation isn’t going to count as MSM, since their founder probably believes that the MSM is all run by the Jeeeeewwwws, er, I mean international bankers. I haven’t read enough Washington Times to know whether they would like to be considered MSM or not. And I guess Westwood One is a talk radio syndicator? So they’re probably out. Otherwise, yup – that listpretty much looks like the MSM to me.
The Washington Times was founded by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, and is still owned by the Unification Church. It seems to be fairly well known for being pretty far out to the right.
Westwood One is, indeed, a radio syndicator, though they’re generally more known for their sports programming (such as NFL broadcasts). It looks like their talk offerings are all over the board, and a lot of them aren’t political at all, and they offer a syndicated hourly newscast (which is probably why they have a seat in that room). They’ve gone through several ownerships (including being operated by CBS at one point), and are currently owned by Cumulus.
Agreed.