Ex-leftist here. I can elaborate. The first component here would be a combination of ignorance and unwillingness to look a little further. When you consume leftist rags, you're always served this painting of an obscure overwhelming conservative force that is keeping everything static. You are never shown this actual enemy, in fact, all you ever get are (((conservative))) boogiemen like Newt Gingrich and Fox News. You are simply told that they're conservative, even if their actions say otherwise, but don't you dare mention that their actions say otherwise, or else you're a conspiracy theorist. You're only told who the 'villains' are and your struggle against them is made suspiciously easy through limitless amounts of supplies and support from large companies that all seem to be helping you. But don't you dare comment on how things are a little too easy to be what you're told, you are totally standing up to the powers that be and threatening the status quo and not acting as it's enforcer. To say otherwise would be a conspiracy theory, and you wouldn't want to be like those wingnuts from infowars, would you now? The dynamic with which the sheep are herded into towing the leftist line is predicated on combining two core components and the moment one of each is missing with one person, that person ceases to be a liberal before long:
A: Lack of knowledge or a grasp of the wider economic and political landscape. To summarize that, a few core examples. Someone doesn't know that corporate news orgs are Jewish wouldn't expect corporate news orgs to pursue explicitly Jewish interests if they could. Someone who doesn't know how corrupt the news industry is, doesn't know how much these news orgs can pursue explicitly Jewish interests. Someone who knows nothing about Jewish culture, religion, history, the protocols, the 88 precepts, and so on and so on, even when knowing that news orgs are Jewish, will not expect there to be any kind of conflict between White and Jewish interests. Combine all these pieces of knowledge missing into one case and you have a person at your hands, that wouldn't understand why a marxist 'revolutionary' instigating people into attacking and defaming a white alternative news site would have any ulterior motives to it whatsoever.
B: An emotional chokehold through shaming tactics that successfully implants a deep fear of any information alternative sources could show you. This is achieved in part through mockery of overtly crazy stories, over-highlighting hand-picked exceptions of crazy people with vaguely conservative politics, and simply made up straw conservatives. I mean conservatives and those nahtzee conspiracy theories, amirite? Didn't Alex Jones talk about reptilians that one time, obviously any people implying that rich kikes run human trafficking rings are just as crazy as alex jones talking about reptilians and greys. In part, it is achieved by creating ivory towers that project status, and then disparaging competitors and dissenters from those ivory towers. By ivory towers, of course I mean making a news channel that runs through satellite or cable, with a shiny studio with young news anchors with lots of make-up and clean, expensive suits and with some vaguely spherical computer generated animation in the background to make the program seem 'global', to make the audience feel like they're a person that gets around in the world if they watch your news program. And then, through these ivory towers, you declare other ivory towers to be approved, and suddenly, you have the established authorities that GLR talked about, where to an ignorant normie, it seems like something has genuine merit to it, when in actuality, it's just a small club of nepotists recommending each other to their audiences. And to then demand or create a monopoly on perceived status. You are only an educated person that isn't deserving of John leibovitz mocking you, if the lines you parrot are from us and this set of other news stations, all of which happen to be our buddies. So what if the CNN lied to you this one time you caught them? Whatever they say must be true, because the BBC says it as well, and there's no way there is some unifying corporate structure that leads to memos being passed down to different news organizations, right?