The press’s war against free speech
The injunction barring federal agencies from communicating with these firms was blocked from going into effect by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 14. But no final judgment in the case has been entered, and, whatever the ultimate result, the wisdom of government speech suppression — and the bizarre and outspoken support thereof by large parts of the press — remain continuing issues.
Doughty’s 155-page opinion cites allegations that White House and other government officials have “significantly encouraged” and “coerced” social media firms Facebook, Google, and Twitter to suppress information not just occasionally, but repeatedly, and often in peremptory and threatening tones. Those allegations have been backed up by the “Twitter Files” investigations of liberal writers Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger.
The bewailing at this opinion came in loud and clear. The Washington Post, as columnist Mary Katherine Ham pointed out, lamented that Doughty’s decision “could undo years of efforts to enhance coordination between the government and social media companies.” The New York Times worried that Doughty’s decision “could force government officials … to refrain from notifying the platforms of troublesome content,” and “could curtail efforts to combat disinformation.”
When the only information you have access to is that which is approved by the government it is time for the 2nd to defend the 1st. The case referenced must be decided in favor of the plaintiffs to head off some seriously bad times.
All the opposition to the case does accomplish something. The enemies of freedom are self identifying. That is never a bad thing.
It seems counter-intuitive for the media to support free speech suppression, but I can think of several reasons for them to do it.
Understand, first and foremost, “Real Reporters” and “Authorized Journalists” believe they are better than the rest of us, that their profession gives them special privileges we peons don’t have (not unlike “Only One” cops), and that free speech restrictions won’t apply to them.
On those points, they are wrong (with one exception, explained below), but they believe it.
Now, take it a step further: Reporting is hard, real investigative journalism even more so. But parroting what the government tells you is easy; just take their press release, tweak the specific verbiage to make it more your own, and call it a day. You take home the same paycheck either way, so why not make it easier on yourself? (see here: This is What Mind Control Looks Like)
Plus — and this is that one exception where the media’s belief is correct — free speech is only needed for unpopular opinions; so long as you’re only reporting what the government wants, you’re fine. Free speech suppression, therefore, is a two-fold benefit: the government will never silence you, but they will silence independent reporters, which effectively eliminates your competition.
Looked at from those angles, of course the media supports free speech restrictions!
Spot on. Which makes them what we have always known them to be. Actors that couldn’t make it anywhere else.
To me, we could be just as informed with AI and a Max Headroom cartoon. And far more entertaining. (Except maybe the Brazilian weather girl.)
Nah, AI is too malleable by programmers and “training” outside our control. You’d only be informed on what the programmers and “trainers” think you need to be informed on.
I’ll take a RSS reader and a list of varied news and blog sites. If I feel uninformed on a topic, I’ll add an appropriate feed for the reader to watch (as I’ve done several times).
Independent “citizen journalists” — including bloggers — are some of the best-informed and most thorough investigative reporters around. Unlike a MSM talking head reading someone else’s words from a teleprompter, a blogger knows his/her subject, is usually personally invested in it, and when he/she reports, you’re getting some level of insider knowledge into whatever is being covered. The 15-second soundbite on a MSM news program never goes so deep and often gets even basic things wrong.
I have no reason to think an AI would do any better if it’s programmed to find “newsworthy” stories like a MSM editor or “trained” on MSM newscasts (both of which amount to the same thing).
But bringing back Max Headroom would be hilarious. (Especially if he comments on Brazilian weather girls.) 😀
Ya, I know crap about computers.
My conception of AI would be to just search out your interests and provide links.
AI that just does the; Who, what, where, when, and possibly the why, if known.
Something like that in a Max Headroom cartoon would do better than all the networks combined.
Especially if it linked in the Brazilian weather girl!
241 & 242. Deprivation of rights, and conspiracy to deprive rights.
Government and anyone that did what they were ordered to do. Are guilty under those two laws.
It’s not just the government that is guilty here.
Let’s face it, they helped steal an election that has cost us way more than what we would have hung a private citizen over.
Covid information alone cost us countless lives and trillions of dollars. Instead of, use a Z-pak and call me in the morning?
Not to mention the millions of lives destroyed in, once again, Ukraine. (Whatever I think about Trump, he would not allow a war in Ukraine.)
Censorship by government and order takers has proven the to be more than dangerous to the republic.
Public hangings for the principals. Break up and sale off the companies that “followed orders”. Should be the minimum.
Instead, we can count ourselves lucky that we got a strongly word judicial decision these days!
The “press” is no longer the “press”. They are the criminal lefts paid and complicit propagandists. Journalism is dead. It was murdered in the name of profit, power and control.