Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, April 07, 2021

From now on, "Meet the Censored" articles will be released in pairs. The speech debate has become so partisan that people now often cheer news that this or that person has been kicked off the Internet " this is an increasingly common reaction. When I profiled World Socialist Web Site writer Andre Damon, conservatives complained that his site wasn't representative of the censorship problem, and I was showing bias. When I profiled Irreversible Damage author Abigail Shrier, leftists argued I was carrying water for the intolerant right.


Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

I don't particularly care whom people think I'm carrying water for, but in the effort to keep eyes on the ball, I'm going to release these stories in matched sets: one on the right, one on the left, one conservative, one not, etc. The first two such pieces, coming out today, will feature the non-profit investigative outfit U.S. Right to Know, and well-known conservative reporter Paul Sperry.


Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The reason going after independents matters so much is that "credentialed" media, when they screw up, tend to do so en masse. If you try to launder all content through a handful of big corporate players like CNN, MSNBC, and the Times, you're virtually guaranteeing that the next WMD or Gulf of Tonkin or Russiagate reporting fiasco will go undetected for longer. The same reasoning applies to algorithmic changes that sharply reduced traffic at alternative sites like or The World Socialist Web Site: putting a thumb on the scale to drive readers into more "mainstream" baskets just makes bigger outlets worse and less accountable.

#1 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2021-04-07 04:57 PM | Reply

"Ten years from now, people will likely not have trouble realizing that putting five or six companies in charge of regulating all content was probably not a good idea, for all but a small handful of empowered actors."

These cries of censorship fall flat. To my knowledge Google, Apple, Twitter, etc have never prevented any media outlet from publishing a story. Where did this idea that these companies have some obligation to amplify the voice of anyone? Distribution is not the same as publication. Distribution methods have always had boundaries and standards for what products they carry and promote. Should I be mad that Borders Books or the corner gas station for that matter wouldn't sell the crappy little 'zine I self-published in high school?

#2 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2021-04-09 07:23 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort