Category: media and media people

Internet controversy media and media people

Google Gag Reflex

Maybe it’s an honor when big-tech companies gag you. Maybe you’re doing something right.

Google-owned YouTube has yanked a Mises Institute talk by Tom Woods (“The COVID Cult”) from the Institute’s YouTube channel for challenging orthodox views of the pandemic. Google is also threatening the Mises Institute with further sanctions if the Institute’s YouTube channel sponsors further prohibited discourse.

In response, Mises Institute President Jeff Deist observes that Google and other big-tech firms have become de facto extensions of the state, “governmentalities . . . committed to ideological service. . . .”

To fight back, he says, we must “build our own platforms.” YouTube alternatives include Bitchute and Odysee, which still host the forbidden talk.

In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill argued that there’s a big difference “between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.”

Not every word of this passage is incontestable, but Mill had a point. If Google is so sure it is so right about COVID-19 policy and Woods so wrong, why try to kill an “opportunity for contesting” Google’s view?

Maybe Google’s “assurance of being right” is not so rational.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

ideological culture media and media people

A Little Maher Common Sense

Post author By Redactor
Post date November 20, 2020
1 Comment on A Little Maher Common Sense

I’m not the biggest fan of Democrat comedian-pundit Bill Maher. But when he’s right, he’s right.

Mr. Maher once said the sun rises in the east. I concur. He also says that Democrats shouldn’t be so off-puttingly wackadoodle and tyrannical. Correct.

According to Maher, “Democrats are the party of every hypersensitive, social justice warrior, woke bulls — t. The party that disappears people or tries to make them apologize for ridiculous things. [Democrats] think silence is violence, and looting is not. [And we’re the party of] replacing ‘Let’s not see color’ with ‘Let’s see it always and everywhere.’”

In his indictment, the HBO jester argues “the crux of the problem” is that “Democrats too often don’t come across as having common sense to a huge swath of people.”

Right again!

“It would be so easy to win elections,” he deduces, “if we would just drop this s**t!”

Maher notes a New York Times post-election report that congressional “Democrats wept, cursed and traded blame” over the election results on a recent conference call. Rep. James Clyburn (D‑SC) warned that “we’re not going to win” in Georgia if Democrats are talking “Medicare for all or defunding police or socialized medicine.”

“Democratic rhetoric needs to be dialed back,” Maher quotes Rep. Connor Lamb (D‑Pa.). “It needs to be rooted in common sense.”

“I feel like I’m being asked to be quiet,” responded squad-member Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D‑Mich.).

Tlaib is half right. The solution to this problem for Democrats is to abandon their anti-common-sense positions. Not to hide them.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Bill Maher, Democrats, woke culture

media and media people

Not Acosta

In late April, Scott Johnson, cofounder of the political blog Power Line, a former attorney and an accredited reporter, was banned from the Minnesota government’s daily briefings about the COVID-19 pandemic. Officials also stopped answering his written questions.

Why?

Minnesota officials told the Washington Free Beacon that the briefings were limited to “professional journalists.” But if they regarded Johnson as something other than a professional journalist, why had he been allowed to attend to begin with?

More plausible is Johnson’s contention in his June lawsuit against the state that officials simply didn’t like his conservative political perspective or his questions. Johnson had been critical of the policies of Minnesota’s governor, Tim Walz, in combatting the pandemic.

Months later, Scott Johnson has won his lawsuit. He can attend the briefings now. And officials must answer at least three of his written questions per week.

A question occurred to me as I was mulling this story: Isn’t what Minnesota did in banning Johnson from the COVID-19 briefings exactly like what Trump did to that CNN banshee, Jim Acosta, when he banned Acosta from presidential briefings?*

No, not exactly, I answer myself. Trump ousted a reporter who was persistently rude and disruptive. “Asking questions government officials dislike” and “being a constant ass” are not the same thing.

At Power Line, Johnson has posted many reports about the lawsuit and about the course of the pandemic in Minnesota.

He may not be welcome by those in government he probes, but we out here, far from power, are glad he is there.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* CNN sued and a judge issued a temporary restraining order against the White House, after which CNN and the Trump Administration agreed Acosta could return as long as he followed rules of decorum newly written by the administration and applied to all reporters.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags CNN, Jim Acosta, press

ideological culture media and media people

Landscape, with Trumpians

“America, in the aggregate, seems just as stupid as it was four years ago,” Philip Kennicott, The Washington Post’s Pulitzer Prize-winning art and architecture critic, declared over the weekend.

Last week’s election was not, Mr. Kennicott correctly concludes, “a repudiation of Trumpism.” He finds “horrifying” the fact that six million or so more Americans voted for Trump over last go-around.The problem? “White supremacy,” which he says is “existential, precognitive and pervasive”; Trumpism is its “colloquial alternative.”

Yet the critic omits the evidence.

“I’ll leave his policies and his politics — to the extent that he ever had policies or coherent politics — to the pundits,” Kennicott punts.

A master of mere assertion, he declares the MAGA crowd filled with “not just avowed racists who have publicly supported the president but also those who downplay the problem, or align with it for personal gain, or are simply unwilling to acknowledge its history and persistence.”

Trumpeting “our unique brand of ugliness,” Kennicott can’t see the city for the slums.

Moral uglinesses are evident here and worldwide. But the U.S. is uniquely recognized around the globe for freedom and human rights.

“Trumpism is embedded in America and can be fought only through rigorous self-discipline, through constant surveillance of the thoughts we think, the words we use and the assumptions we make,” writes Kennicott. “Now we know it not as a perverse blemish on American culture but as foundational to American culture. That’s progress.”

Not true. Not progress. But the Post scrivener does sum up progressivism’s current cultural revolution: “constant surveillance of the thoughts we think.”

He didn’t like this past election or the one four years ago. He won’t like 2022 or 2024 any better.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

media and media people

Love in Their Hearts

“A lot of white liberals in New York City and Washington DC who run media have found, suddenly, the compassion and love in their heart for immigrants they didn’t know was there,” Ruben Navarrette, Jr., a journalist-turned-syndicated columnist, told Full Measure’s Sharyl Attkisson yesterday, “because for eight years, they didn’t give a crap about the fact that a Democrat and a black president was deporting all these people.”

“But now that Trump is there,” he added, “man, they do care, and do they love immigrants.”

Navarrette is “the most widely read Latino columnist in the country,” and Attkisson billed the interview as an “eye-opening personal insight on how the news is shaped today.”

When asked if editors had ever pressured him to take a specific angle on a story as a Latino, Navarrette answered Yes.

“But you don’t always,” Attkisson noted. “What problem has that posed?”

“I’ve been fired eight times in the course of 30 years,” deadpanned Navarrette. One of those firings was from CNN.

“I was at CNN for a number of years.… covering Barack Obama and the Obama administration’s really terrible record of deportations,” he explained. “Over eight years, the Barack Obama administration deported three million people, separated families, put kids in cages.

“I was told by my boss,” Navarrette disclosed, “I needed to stop writing about that.”

One critical element in achieving immigration reform is to revive, first, the art of actual journalism. We citizens need facts and unbiased information to gain knowledge and, accordingly, instruct our representatives in government.

Spinning stories — or dumping them down the memory hole — in an attempt to push corporate media’s partisan political narratives, on the other hand, casts the press and democratic ideals in darkness.

Regardless of who is president.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Ruben Navarrette

media and media people

The Itch to Edit

There is a place in this world for editors, but not for censors.

What’s the difference?

Ask Glenn Greenwald: “editors should be there to empower and enable strong, highly factual, aggressive adversarial journalism, not to serve as roadblocks to neuter or suppress the journalism.”

This is from Greenwald’s statement, this week, about his resignation from The Intercept.

Greenwald co-founded the online journalistic platform in 2013, with the proviso that he could publish what he wanted with minimal interference. But slowly, over time, the editors he and his co-founders put in place have flouted the spirit as well as (Greenwald insists) the letter of those original agreements. So much so that they refused to publish a piece by Greenwald unless he removed “all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.”

Greenwald has published that “censored” article on Substack, a platform you may be familiar with for publishing Greenwald’s fellow leftist journo, Matt Taibbi.

This fracas is not a public issue, in one sense. Greenwald lost control of an institution he set up. That’s between him and that institution and all their lawyers.

But it does show the extent to which “the pathologies, illiberalism, and repressive mentality that led to the bizarre spectacle of [Greenwald] being censored by [his] own media outlet are … the viruses that have contaminated virtually every mainstream center-left political organization, academic institution, and newsroom.”

We can understand why they might desperately itch to hourly edit the Twitterer in Chief. But it is a bit harder to understand that while they complain Trump has broken with established “norms,” they themselves violate long-established norms of their own profession.

I mean journalism.

Not propaganda.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts