Media Corruption
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
^But, which version? I have the Classic and Star Wars edition.
Did You Ever Wonder How and Why the Left Is Able to Push Their Narratives Almost Unhindered?
And what’s going on is censorship. We can’t stay in denial, clinging to the notion that what a private company chooses to promote or effectively banish is its own business. Because it isn’t a single company. There’s a cabal working hand in hand — and sometimes cash in fist — with the United States government and governments around the world.
My RedState colleague Brad Slager just cued me into an organization in the UK called the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), reliably progressive, that produces lists of sites and articles that ought to be made unpersons, or at least thrown down the memory hole. GDI and groups like it all over the world, Brad explained, are set up as “non-profits, media-focus outfits, or university-based think tanks that classify sites that go against the narrative as dangerous and in need of corrective actions.”
Big Tech, with a wink and a nod, takes their “non-partisan” rulings as gospel, and friendly governments (like our own and the UK’s) turn a blind eye to this suppression of free speech. When they aren’t actively taking part, that is.
“The greatest perpetrator of misinformation during the pandemic has been the United States government,” John’s Hopkins professor Dr. Marty Markary testified to Congress on Tuesday. That misinformation was repeated, amplified, repeated again, and reamplified, across every available medium.
Want to talk about the dangers or efficacy of the you-know-what jabs? Want to talk about masks? Down the memory hole with you. But masks were yesterday and jabs are today. Tomorrow you’ll be memory-holed for defending your gas cooktop. The day after tomorrow it will be about your child or grandchild being subversively “transitioned” behind your back by their school authorities.
We’re drowned out by the Current Message, and yet I continue to shout into the din because I must.
Free speech in the UK is not the same here. The Human Rights Act of 1998 codified free speech with exceptions.
Fox News Is Reportedly Shadowbanning Donald Trump
According to four Trump aides who spoke with Semafor, the former president is now facing an unofficial ban at Fox News, with the network refusing to book him or even talk much about him in the context of the Republican presidential primary. “It’s certainly — however you want to say, quiet ban, soft ban, whatever it is — indicative of how the Murdochs feel about Trump in this particular moment,” said one aide. Another said they’ve heard directly from people at Fox News that the policy exists.
While the network did not respond to a request for comment, the approach is playing out on television: Trump hasn’t been on Fox News since September, when its hosts rallied around him in the wake of the Mar-a-Lago raid and he told Sean Hannity that he could declassify documents by “thinking about it.” They even skipped his trip last week to East Palestine, Ohio — a major talking point in the debate over the environmental disaster. Meanwhile, future 2024 also-ran Vivek Ramaswamy has been on the network four times in the ten days since he announced his run. By the metric of showing up on TV, Florida governor Ron DeSantis appears to be the favorite, appearing on Fox shows four times in three days this week.
There's Something Interesting About How Google Flagged Townhall's Coverage of the COVID Lab Leak
But no. Coverage of the Energy Department's updated conclusion that a lab leak was the most likely origin of COVID-19 on other sites appears alongside Google-served advertisements.
The Wall Street Journal, which broke the story about the Energy Department's lab leak conclusion, still has Google ads appearing alongside its article. CNN's report on the conclusion also features Google ads. Same for The New York Times, NBC News, The Guardian, CBS News, and various other outlets.
So why did Google prevent ads from appearing on Townhall's report quoting the same information as those corporate outlets? And then reaffirm its "unreliable and harmful" rating for the story when we appealed to ensure Google hadn't labeled the story "in error," as the company said was the case when they flagged Senator Paul's column on gain-of-function research?
Why, it almost seems as though Google treats conservative outlets like Townhall differently than larger mainstream outlets — and rarely corrects such disparate treatment unless it is publicly called out by Townhall, as happened last time.
We reached out to Google to seek an explanation after following the process the company had outlined to us before. Their response did not address Townhall's questions about why our coverage was treated differently than mainstream outlets, only reiterated that the company has "strict publisher policies" and a claim that "discussing the origins of COVID-19 is not a violation" of Google's policies.
The company's statement continued, claiming some stories "were labeled in error and these decisions have been overturned," while others remain flagged for violating Google's prohibition on "dangerous and derogatory" content and "harmful health claims." Again, Google said publishers such as Townhall are "encouraged" to "appeal decisions" we believe were wrong.
Google Tries to Discredit Study Showing Google News’ Left-Wing Bias
AllSides uses blind bias surveys of Americans across the political spectrum and expert panel reviews from a multipartisan group in order to prevent one individual or group from having a disproportionate impact on the ratings.
AllSides analyzed only the outlets Google News featured, not the specific articles. The report emphasizes that it does not include any determinations on whether Google News’ political leanings or biases are intentional. “Whether Google should provide a broader or more balanced diversity of perspectives, and whether that would support or hinder a healthier democratic society, is a philosophical or ethical question beyond the bounds of this analysis,” the report states.
A Google spokesperson panned the report in comments to The Daily Signal.
“Our systems do not take political ideology into account, and we go to extraordinary lengths to build our products for everyone,” the spokesperson said. “This study’s methodology is deeply flawed. It cherry-picked a few topics and ran for a very brief period of time, presenting a misleading picture of Google News.”
Google also pointed to information on its news publisher help center, noting that its algorithms focus on features such as relevance, authoritativeness, and freshness, rather than political ideology. The company also highlighted a 2019 study from The Economist, which found that “Google rewards reputable reporting more than left-wing politics. Our statistical study revealed no evidence of ideological bias in the search engine’s news tab.”
If The Dominion Defamation Lawsuit Is A Slam Dunk, Why Are CNN And The New York Times Lying About It?
I don’t know who needs to hear this at CNN and the Times (everyone) but it’s not a “lie” to cite allegations made by a sitting president’s lawyers or campaign officials. That Fox people cited those claims (which, again, were made by associates of a sitting president) and then privately expressed doubt about them doesn’t mean they intentionally misled their audiences. It means they let their audiences know about real-life events, which, believe it or not, don’t always require a “FACT CHECK: YOU’RE WRONG, MR. PRESIDENT!”
Here’s one of the more extreme examples of a Fox host talking about 2020 election suspicions and the voting machines, and it comes in the form of Jeanine Pirro in late November that year: “The president’s lawyers have come forward alleging … The president’s lawyer’s alleging … which they say … And the president’s lawyers alleging … These are serious allegations … The president’s lawyers offered evidence … The president’s lawyers have indicated …”
Pirro told her audience what Trump’s lawyers said. It’s not a crime to describe what’s happening in the world.
To put it another way, Nicholas Sandmann sued CNN (and earned a settlement) for describing his appearance in a viral video in ways that suggested he was an aggressive bigot. Am I now responsible for further harming Sandmann’s reputation for stating those facts? No, obviously.
Also included in the court filings was testimony by Fox CEO Rupert Murdoch, who says himself of some hosts that “they endorsed” the concept of a “stolen election.” But what Murdoch did not say is that they “endorsed” the claim that Dominion’s machines delivered a fake outcome of the election.
Faced With Their Own Idiocy On The Lab Leak, Media Double Down On Calling You A Racist Rube
Anyway, it’s also worth taking special note of the subtle rhetorical sleight of hand Minhaj employs to dismiss those who feel vindicated by the fact you’re now allowed to discuss the possibility that Covid leaked from a laboratory doing gain-of-function research on coronaviruses that’s curiously close to where the outbreak originated: He calls them “f-cking idiots” and then dunks on his supposedly less successful high school classmates for an added soupçon of moral superiority. (For what it’s worth, even former “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart apparently qualifies as a “f-cking idiot” regarding the lab-leak theory.)
Yes, I know — it’s late-night on basic cable. Clown nose is on. Except once again, Minhaj is perfectly representative of the disingenuousness to be found elsewhere. Here’s MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan saying the quiet part out loud earlier this week:
In other words, the lab-leak theory was closely associated with people they disagreed with who they themselves deliberately conflated with conspiracists. Got it. This isn’t even the worst of it; there was a real consensus that the only possible motivation anyone may have had to discuss the lab leak was the same motivation the bad people have for everything: rayyycccissssm. Here’s the attempt of former Vox columnist David Roberts to sum up the lab-leak debate:
Now it bears saying that Roberts is something of an edgy liberal journalist — not that there’s anything wrong with that, if anything I appreciate the honesty. However, this same view has been manifested in much more insidious ways throughout the media in such a way as to define the debate over the lab leak from the outset.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I did kind of get the impression that the evening hosts were on board with the concept that Dominion, at the very least, had a back channel way to adjust live voting.
What I don't know, and perhaps someone can clarify is - I kind of thought any successful defamation lawsuit depended on showing there was ACTUAL damage that is quantifiable and not just hurt feelings. And I don't see this.
As I understand the situation Dominion is trying to clam and Schumer for that matter ... by ' reporting ' on Trump's Cl;aims they were supporting Trump's Claims and therefore complicit ...
a common left wing / progressive stance .. or even not commenting negatively about a topic, you therefore support a topic
1. Speak Positively about a Progressive Talking Point
2. Speak Negatively about a GOP Talking Point
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I would think ANYONE would want to know - how did this happen? And the "official" story not only didn't make sense, it became increasingly unlikely with the scrutiny of actual facts.
Moreover - since it was posited officially to have originated in Wuhan, it is not absurd to suspect that a lab that specializes in coronaviruses in Wuhan was the most likely culprit. Even such far right conspiracists as Jon Stewart would ridicule the objections to it being from a lab in Wuhan.
There are still those who point to the Wuhan "wet market" idea, that a virus, originating in bats from hundreds of miles away (and not sold in the market) somehow passed the virus to ANOTHER animal - and not a pangolin, because they're not sold there either - which THEN jumped to a person -
Or -
Someone in the lab got infected and it got out. Which seems simpler, to you? One case makes it the weirdest freak of nature every conceived, and the other, the kind of accident which CAN happen, probably does, but would be an extreme embarassment to one of the most authoritarian nations on Earth?
That Fact was irrelevant ... the left needed another talking point to shite on Trump with so Racism was the call of the day
1. Trump restricted Chinese Travel to the US
2. Wuhan was the suspected place or origin
So an mention if a Chinese Origin was labeled racist
I remember reading at the time as the infections were exploding in Italy [ one of the 1st hot spots in Europe ] Chinese Belt and Road Workers in Italy were returning to Italy from Chinese New Year Celebrations in China, many from Wuhan .....
and at the time China was trying to blame US Military for bringing in the virus as some military competition hosted before the outbreak
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I remember the bit where the journalist asks "why do you call it the China virus" and Trump answers without hesitation "because it comes from China". I'm guessing that the journalist comes from some group of persons who think you mustn't ever use labels that might hurt someone's feelings.
Google Tries to Discredit Study Showing Google News’ Left-Wing Bias
AllSides uses blind bias surveys of Americans across the political spectrum and expert panel reviews from a multipartisan group in order to prevent one individual or group from having a disproportionate impact on the ratings.
AllSides analyzed only the outlets Google News featured, not the specific articles. The report emphasizes that it does not include any determinations on whether Google News’ political leanings or biases are intentional. “Whether Google should provide a broader or more balanced diversity of perspectives, and whether that would support or hinder a healthier democratic society, is a philosophical or ethical question beyond the bounds of this analysis,” the report states.
A Google spokesperson panned the report in comments to The Daily Signal.
“Our systems do not take political ideology into account, and we go to extraordinary lengths to build our products for everyone,” the spokesperson said. “This study’s methodology is deeply flawed. It cherry-picked a few topics and ran for a very brief period of time, presenting a misleading picture of Google News.”
Google also pointed to information on its news publisher help center, noting that its algorithms focus on features such as relevance, authoritativeness, and freshness, rather than political ideology. The company also highlighted a 2019 study from The Economist, which found that “Google rewards reputable reporting more than left-wing politics. Our statistical study revealed no evidence of ideological bias in the search engine’s news tab.”
How is Newsweek in the center .? They take a leftist view on everything.
Emily Compagno mentioned on Outnumbered this week that there is a DOD (?) email/memo from 2018 floating around questioning the level training of technicians and staff at the Wuhan lad. They had fears of an accident of some kind happening.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
You know, I thought so too, but I've been seeing more and more stuff from them more favroable to the right, leading me to think it might be one or two writers they allow to write - like, say, Mark Thiessen of the Washington Post.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I'm just thinking of the kind of people whose reaction is, it's so mean to call it a China virus, it insults China when it's a virus and we should call it a more scientific name. Trump WAS calling them out - by calling it the Wuhan or China virus, he was making sure people knew - this didn't just spring up from SOMEWHERE, it came from China.Until those journalists use them for people on the right .