I'll stop laughing when Fox News is no longer the most watched cable news outlet in the country. A self described entertainment channel, who said under oath "no rational person would believe the things we say"

I think CNN would try to hide under "entertainment" in front of a court of law, but have they actually been dragged in front of a court for lying?

MSNBC has used the same "entertainment" defense when it was sued for defamation. All news media organizations use this defense, its not unique to Fox.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddow...

There's a clear distinction between any "Person's show" vs "channel news". I don't expect bill maher or the Oreilly factor to be news either.

Curious what you're citing here? The american right obviously has an extremely robust selection of sources to choose from in every medium there is. You can read Breitbart or watch Fox, you can find multiple radio stations with talking heads in every market. You can find fellow travellers on Facebook or 4chan (or right here). The biggest podcast in the nation pushes a mostly conservative line.

I mean, I'm sure that somewhere there's been a terrible abuse and someone got fired or whatever. It's a big country. But, I'm equally sure that whatever happened, you know about it because the news was delivered to you by conservative media.

The US is fine. We had an authoritarian scare for a while, but the system held.

Are you talking about Joe Rogan? He’s not a conservative.

He never said he was, he said Rogan "pushes a mostly conservative line" which from my understanding seems to be true, at least regarding all major issues in the past year or so.

Please provide a single example of a media agency that is barred from publishing content because a "leftist" disagreed with it.

The Hunter Biden Laptop story was openly censored, even when put forward by a journalist with the Post and Biden has admitted that laptop may have been his.

https://nypost.com/2021/09/21/the-hunter-biden-laptop-is-con...

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/09/21/dou...

Leftist bias at the intercept prevented Greenwald from publishing a story about it as well https://nypost.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-quits-the-inte...

When a media agency internally decides not to publish something it might be biased, but that's generally not considered censorship. Censoring can be biased, but not all bias is censorship.

Russia participates in censorship on a state level with its own state-run media agencies. These things are not equivalent. The Hunter Biden story is widely reported by numerous American media outlets.

> The Hunter Biden story is widely reported by numerous American media outlets.

And that story was banned on social media unfairly(this banning was cheered on by Dems and left leaning folks), even though it turned it to be credible later.

It was egregious censorship is the main point I am making here.

As bad as Putin? No. Was it bad? Yes.

it’s not just “not as bad” it’s categorically a different thing

they’re easy categories: government enforced censorship (ie lose your freedom for disobeying) vs private businesses’ editorial discretion (ie just get your news from another company)

Just because you outsource censorship to tech companies to get around the 1A doesn't mean it's not censorship.

The "muh private companies" argument ended long ago when government officials started using it as their main platform and we applied archive rules and prevented Trump from blocking people: https://www.wsj.com/articles/president-trump-cant-block-twit...

You can't have it both ways. Let's investigate why they all decided at once to block it right before the election. Are they coordinating? Let's find out. Seems like an anti-trust issue.

Point is, it's censorship, no matter how much people try to weasel out of it.

Go get the laws changed then, not sure what to tell you if you don’t agree that there are significant differences between the state and private business - free speech as defined by our constitution is rather specific. Complaining about it on the internet won’t change that.

We're talking about ideals not legality, what is and isn't censorship.

It's legal in Russia to do what Putin is doing, that doesn't make it not censorship.

But yes, we're working on it, it starts with public discussion and communicating with our representatives, which I and others do.

The censorship was Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube blocking it all at once before the election. The media helped by downplaying it and going with the Russian disinformation/hack lie.

Playing semantics over whether omission of truth is bias vs. censorship doesn't make a strong argument.

It's not semantics, it's constitutional law. Literally the founding principles of the country.

You're mixing up the concept of censorship with the 1A.

The 1A guarantees the right that our government won't censor us.

It only pertains to the government, not these two instances involving social media behemoths and Russia.

Just because something doesn't violate the 1A doesn't mean it's not censorship.

Are you saying Putin isn't censoring information since it's legal for him to do so in Russia?

News publications have to decide what is and isn't newsworthy, and it could be that this one just doesn't meet the bar. I know the right really really wants it to finally take off and gather steam, since they invested so much into it. It's a hard pill for them to swallow that HunterBidenLaptop just not that interesting or important. Kind of like Hillary's E-mails. At the end of the day nobody really cares about them.

I mean, if I worked in a news room and wanted to publish a story about the president's cousin's roommate's great soup recipe, and the editor says "NO" does that mean I'm being censored?

You asked for examples of censorship and it was given to you.

Irregardless of Greenwald, you can't deny twitter and social media outlets banning a New York Post journalist(and the White House Press Secretary) for sharing that story was not egregious censorship.

Banning articles from journalists is censorship. Period.

Sorry, but I didn't ask for anything upthread. You might have meant to reply to someone else. Trying not to get involved with a flamewar, but it should be noted that there are many possible explanations of a paper's editorial decisions that do not invoke censorship.

To clarify I gave an example of censorship first and it was ignored by you to create a a long winded argument about Greenwald. You never refuted the point that the original story was banned (even before Greenwald was brought up) or that leftist bias may have factored into there choice to not publish that article that turned out to be credible. Intercept is a left bias rated outlet https://www.allsides.com/news-source/intercept a story about potential corruption from a candidates son is not the same thing as a "cousins recipe". That was a distasteful strawman.

The story was ignored by some outlets because the story smelled rotten. They were right.

That’s their job.

How were they right? the story has been confirmed to be legitimate by organizations like politico and the guardian. Hunter Biden himself admitted the laptop may have been his.

"Rotten" because it looks bad and goes against your bias doesn't make it worthy of censorship. Social media censoring a NY post journalist over this was censorship. Period.

“the story has been confirmed to be legitimate”

You tell me what part of the story you think is true.

A laptop existing isn’t the whole story right?

What I believe to be true is not my point, its that the story was credible enough to be discussed and should not have been censored. I would feel the same if these accusations had been levied at one of trumps family members as well.

The guardian goes more in depth on what aspects of hunter bidens business dealings are worth looking into(they discuss the laptop here as well): https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/27/hunter-biden...

All you’ve said is the laptop was his.

That’s not a story at all, and not the reason the story was rotten.

This reads like you’re not being very honest about the actual story that was being sold to news organizations.

I literally said that its a story worth covering and linked to a story from the guardian that confirms this and goes deeper on his business dealings being potentially shady(and brings up how the laptop fits into this, there was potentially damaging evidence on it). My personal belief is not relevant here, I just feel its a story worth examining.

Your not being honest with your motives to deny the guardian stories points or the fact that article even exists, do you not want to admit there is something potentially shady happening?

I don't know with 100% certainty either way honestly, I would have wanted the story to be covered if it was any other politician (and don't like trump, glad he lost tbh) so I am not sure what bone your trying to pick at. (this comment goes deeper into what was potentially found if you are interested https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30548675)

I don't know enough about the Hunter Biden Laptop story to know what's true and what's not, but your WSJ link is the opinion section. Can you link to a WSJ article not from the opinion section?

It was revealed to likely be real during the publishing of a book by a fairly neutral Politico journalist on Hunter Biden

https://nypost.com/2021/09/21/the-hunter-biden-laptop-is-con...

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/09/21/dou...

Its authenticity has even been acknowledged by The Guardian.

"Now, however, almost no one disputes [the laptop's] authenticity."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/27/hunter-biden...

Not to mention:

- The DKIM hashes of the emails on the laptop were verified.

- The pictures on the laptop contain him in it doing various illicit activities.

- His business partner came out against him.

- He won't deny its inauthentic, he said it "could be".

- There's a video of him talking to a Russian prostitute saying they stole his laptop and he's worried it'll be used to blackmail his father who is running for President.

https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/hunterbiden/video-2479077/...

https://nypost.com/2021/04/02/hunter-biden-says-laptop-at-ce...

I've seen similar stories from nypost. I believe they broke the story but I haven't seen anything from WSJ. Can you post the WSJ articles on the story?

Avowed leftist here: Let's just agree that both the Dems and Repubs ban/seek to stifle opinions they don't agree with. Someone wants to ban Maus, someone else wants to ban Joe Rogan. Both parties want power at the expense of "freedom".

Censorship is part of existing as part of a society though. There are people who seek to actively hurt others using words and media, and the whole idea of a state is to (pretend?) to act in the common good. At this point the internet gives everyone a platform (look at us right now, there's a near 0% chance we would have ever spoken in physical real life) and makes a TON more noise that makes finding the signal harder, which means both sides can find plenty of examples of the other behaving badly to "whatabout" whenever someone points out their own bad behavior.

TL;dr- Everyone wants censorship, even if they pretend they don't, so let's not pretend it's actually either side. If anything, your point just proves that Dems/leftists might have more power in the US to influence these things, but that doesn't prove they have more desire to influence them than the right.

> Someone wants to ban Maus, someone else wants to ban Joe Rogan. Both parties want power at the expense of "freedom".

There is an extremely important difference between these two examples. The first was the government forcing school libraries to remove books.

The second is individuals expressing displeasure with the speech of another individual.

While both involve people who want to silence others. The former is a violation of free speech, while the later is an exercise of free speech.

>> There is an extremely important difference between these two examples. The first was the government forcing school libraries to remove books

Talk about fake news. Maus wasn't banned.

What news sources are you reading that tell you the government forced school libraries to remove Maus? You need to stop reading them, they are misleading you. Find better news sources.

> Censorship is part of existing as part of a society though

I suspect that's exactly what Putin would say if he were challenged.

It's probably also what the parents of dead children in Newtown, who were harassed out of town by Alex Jones listeners, would say.

You need to elaborate more if you want to use hyperbole to make a point, otherwise it's just hyperbole. It exists on both sides of an argument.

> Avowed leftist here: Let's just agree that both the Dems and Repubs ban/seek to stifle opinions they don't agree with. Someone wants to ban Maus, someone else wants to ban Joe Rogan.

What kind of an argument is this? The only common thread between the two is the word "banning".

Banning Joe Rogan is because he spreads misinformation about vaccines. He is causing lots of people to die, and the pandemic is longer because of it.

Banning a book about the holocaust prevents people learning about the atrocities of the past.

>>How can you equate banning Maus with banning Joe Rogan? The only common thread between the two is the word "banning".

Because free speech is free speech, whether you agree with what was said or not.

Free speech is not free speech. Shouting fire in a theater is not free speech because it causes panic then harm.

Shouting fire in a theater when there is no fire and expressing concern over the potentially dangerous side effects of a vaccine are different. The previous is an outright lie about a non-event while the later has some truth.

Its factually true that people have had severe adverse reactions and died from the vaccine. He interviewed genuine credentialed experts like Dr. Robert Malone on the potential dangers of the Covid vaccine.

I am in favor of the Covid vaccine and disagree with Joe but he's allowed to express his dissenting opinions.

Podcasts are not medical advise and should not be treated as such.

> shutting down news media that they disagree with

I suspect what you mean by this is "outlets claiming to report 'news' but actually spreading misinformation".

That's quite different from "disagreement".

What would you call news outlets like MSNBC spreading lies about the Kyle Rittenhouse case? An honest mistake? Or calling the lab leak theory racist?

Notice how this works?

When a news source that is aligned with your political party gets it wrong "its ok" but when its a new source that is not aligned with your party its "spreading misinformation".

There is no objective standard for misinformation so trying to say disagreement and misinformation are not the same depends entirely on what is the issue being discussed. Any issue with ambiguity can be dismissed far too easily by just claiming it "misinformation".

I guess your assumption is that everyone left-aligned watches (and agrees with) MSNBC. That isn't true. I certainly don't watch it.

There are reliable news outlets. Don't assume that just because an outlet has a political skew in the direction opposite from your preferred one that everyone you disagree with must watch and endorse it. That's a strawman.

> That's a strawman.

Its a strawman that you are introducing by saying:

> I suspect what you mean by this is "outlets claiming to report 'news' but actually spreading misinformation".

> That's quite different from "disagreement".

I am pointing out that there is not a large difference between what you say is misinformation and disagreement. Many news outlets get things wrong and are guilty of allowing political bias to steer them towards saying things that are not true. You can't just call something misinformation because you disagree with it.

Nearly every news outlet in this country has gotten things wrong at some point and a tenuous definition of misinformation could be used to make them all look bad.

Citing something as "misinformation" is often a strawman argument and a word used to dismiss viewpoints people do not agree with on any issue that has some ambiguity, including the lab leak theory.

When the Lab leak theory had absolutely no evidence for it, and was being purported days after the start of the pandemic, it was racist.

Later, the longer a root cause was not discovered, the more likely the theory became, and the less racist it became to speak about.