Julian Assange? Edward Snowden? Manning? Don't think local news really want to touch those subjects or at least not elaborate.

In comparison, RT, etc. Is almost rubbing it in people's faces even now that it feels overdone.

Kind of hard to make that argument when The Intercept was on the list.

> Can you give example of dissident voices in the US?

Really? How about: Occupy Wall Street, BLM, Anonymous, sovereign citizen/militia groups, pipeline protesters, anti factory farm agitators, union activists, socialists, alt-righters, Antifa, straight up Nazis, Nation of Islam, the list goes on.

I don't agree with the positions of the vast majority of these groups, but I do think that it's important that we understand what they try to do and why they are trying to do it. Existing media outlets (even so-called "alt media") provide grossly distorted views of events associated with these groups, if they report on them at all.

Which of them are not covered by either of the above sources?

He doesn't mean that these platforms ignores existence of these groups, he says that they cannot provide place and sufficient time for these groups to express their positions in their own words, not distorted opinions and distorted facts in a way suitable for media corporations and their owners.

Anything that may not be considered politically correct?

Very well covered by Fox and endless far right blogs and other publications ... I can't imagine there's been a time in history when more content of that sort was available.

That’s what we had Gawker for.