The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.
If ever there was that proverbial popcorn moment on social media it took place Friday night, when Elon Musk released documents, as promised, that exposed some of the backdoor dealings the platform engaged in on behalf of the Democrats and President Joe Biden. It is a case of double enjoyment, since we get treated to both Elon’s desire to turn the interrogator’s light on the actions of the prior management and then, watch the press unspool in their reaction to what is exposed–since it shows how they manipulated the system.
There are two primary reactions we are seeing in the press. Bob Hoge covered in detail how many of the major news outlets completely bypassed covering the Musk document release. The other is on the opposite end of the spectrum, and that is how journalists are actually working on dismissing this story. The irony is that as much of the content was released surrounded Twitter’s treatment of the Hunter Biden laptop story, this weekend we are seeing the press repeating the practice – they, once again, are working diligently to find reasons to not delve into the facts of the story.
What stands out initially is that seeing the internal communications that showed the Democratic Party leadership had a direct line with Twitter brass to call for the silencing of accounts and trends, we get the stark projection that took place the past couple of months. Many journalists decried that under Musk, Twitter would be a public square of misinformation that would taint the electoral process. Now, we see that the Democrats worked to enforce that very type of corruption.
In reaction to this last detail, many a member of the media class emerged to heap condemnation on this document release. It speaks volumes that journalists would have a sharply negative reaction to information coming out. Matt Taibbi was the primary source to deliver this initial cache of documents (Elon promises more are on the way), and it is telling that Taibbi would become a focus of scorn from other journalists. This ‘How DARE he!’ response echoes what we saw when NBC’s Dasha Burns dared report what she experienced when meeting with then-Pennsylvania Democrat gubernatorial candidate John Fetterman.
Deflection is a key trait in exposing these reporters’ hesitation to seek out facts. There may be no better source to typify the press position on this matter than NBC’s Ben Collins. He is the self-described misinformation guru at the news division, and yet when possibly the biggest collection of documents concerning that very topic emerges from a social media platform, Ben instead recoils like it is a pile of rotten brie discovered in the trunk of a car parked at the airport for two months.
Elon Musk paid $44 billion to discover what we already knew: content moderation is messy and involves whole teams of people with a range of viewpoints trying to appease different political factions.
He then gave “leaks” to a Substack Man to present it as a blockbuster.
— Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) December 3, 2022
This approach to the documents of “Old news, nothing to see here” is pervasive in the journo sect.
Not for nothing, but so far, everything revealed is… basically exactly what has been known for nearly two years, and is basically… how these kinds of decisions always work? I mean… why the buildup to reveal… this?
— Mike Masnick (@mmasnick) December 3, 2022
Watching some of the most famous, most powerful and richest men red-pill themselves into disaster. Pretty wild!
— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) December 2, 2022
Another common deflection seen from these reporters facing evidence that Democrats had the ability to contact Twitter management and call for particular news items to be spiked is to wave a hand, declaring that Donald Trump was president at the time, so you cannot say it was government influence.
I’m pretty sure that Donald Trump was president in October 2020 and Joe Biden didn’t have any government authority. May be misremembering though.
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) December 3, 2022
This is just a precious piece of desperation. The Democrats had no involvement in government during Trump’s term, goes this argument. A man entrenched in D.C. for five decades and running for the highest office at the time is not part of the government, according to Matt Yglesias. This was his hot take, in response to the document showing the Biden team was in regular contact with Twitter executives, steering what content needed to be moderated by request.
Another revelation from Friday night illustrated how devoted the company was to one side of politics. A sheet showing the corporate donations by party is not only illustrative; it basically proved their slavish devotion to the Dems.
Days will be needed to comb through the documents exposing Twitter this weekend, but one graphic will explain the bias inside the headquarters.
These are the political donations from inside the company the last 3 election cycles. Never was less than 96% support of Democrats. pic.twitter.com/ZujkaIkiwS— Brad Slager: Polling For Soup (@MartiniShark) December 3, 2022
Making this all the more laughably revealing is that the lone GOP recipient this year was Adam Kinzinger. But media analyst Brandy Zadrozny peered over these glaring numbers and decided it was a nothing-burger of influence.
To leap to political contributions as the reason the right was more often reported for rule breaking is just bad reasoning and really bad reporting. Good thing this guy doesn’t have an editor.
— Brandy Zadrozny (@BrandyZadrozny) December 3, 2022
Matt Taibbi did not “leap” to this conclusion; he provided evidence that it took place. By focusing on this lone document that underscores the mentality of the business, Brandy Zadrozny attempts to wave off the entire collection of evidence laid out last night. It is a case of the press desperate to dismiss the evidence rather than analyze things objectively.
As just another example, here is a New York Times columnist pretending she found disqualifying evidence that there is no basis for this document dump.
Okay then. That’s the big story.
Taibbi says, seemingly with access to all internal docs, the earlier big claim that the government had directly intervened (“stepping in”) to suppress a story before the election has no evidence.
Also seems some nonconsensual nudity was removed. pic.twitter.com/2N5b6fBdiA
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) December 3, 2022
She wants you to focus only on the highlighted passage, since it is obvious that Taibbi was referring to foreign governments in this entry – the phrase “possible foreign hacks” is in the same sentence! Taibbi not only referenced federal law enforcement here, he previously cited intel coming in from the FBI, so he clearly is saying that the US government was involved. This is a case of a journalist cracking out the orange traffic wand flashlights to guide your attention elsewhere.
So the question is, Why? How come we have a raft of journalists facing a clutch of documents exposing rampant collusion between a major social platform and government power players to silence public discourse, and they strive to minimize the import rather than explore the details? It is because they were involved in the process. The machinations to control narratives involve many cogs, and the journalists were working in tandem here to manipulate discourse.
All you need is to see how many in media circles have been spending the past few weeks bleating about the need to control expression. Columns have been written about the danger of unfettered speech, and reporters at the White House have basically been pleading with the administration to step in and control Twitter. They cannot tolerate the stranglehold on information becoming loosened.
We are reaching an inflection point with our media complex. The supposition that journalists call for suppressed speech is less debatable and more proven, and now we are getting more evidence of media outlets working in tandem with government entities. Their objections and denials are revealing. We could be facing significant alterations to our national news discourse rather soon.
