My Thoughts And Opinions on the Perceived Censorship on Conservative Media
There is the idea floating around that Conservative opinions and views are being suppressed. It a nutshell, this is not the case, and I can prove it. The fact that I'm getting very obnoxious ads from PragerU when I watch video on YouTube proves that Conservative opinion isn't being suppressed. If it was, I wouldn't be getting these ads (on a separate note, I really should use a ad-blocker).
Article done.
If it was only that easy. At this point, many will respond with: Robert, you lazy turd. Do a better analysis on the topic. Time to get started.
Many can make a argument that this idea is absurd, and I would be highly inclined to believe them. I'm not one for conspiracy theories. Their is nothing stopping anyone from expressing their opinion whenever.
On the local level, Sinclair Broadcasting, which has a Conservative slant, owns many, if not most, of the local television broadcast stations in this country. On cable television, Fox News has a lot of exposure. They have been surpassing CNN in the ratings lately. Not to mention talk radio. Conservative thought has a strong presence in print media. The WSJ is a good example, even though their writers still cater to a mass audience without being consumed by their political slant.
Conservatives can post their opinions whenever they want about various topics on FB, Twitter, or any other social platform without nothing stopping them. Now whether that post gets attention due to its merits is a different story. If their was censorship, then Conservatives wouldn't even be able to post what they wanted to in the first place. So the fact that they can post at all and express their opinion on social media without question debunks the myth that there views are being silenced.
Conservative opinions are well represented on the internet as well through various social media platforms. The very fact that this congested pigeon sees unwanted YouTube ads from Conservative think-tank groups is validation that there is no censoring taking place Despite this, their are many reasons why many Conservatives nationwide feel that their opinions are being suppressed.
If it was only that easy. At this point, many will respond with: Robert, you lazy turd. Do a better analysis on the topic. Time to get started.
Many can make a argument that this idea is absurd, and I would be highly inclined to believe them. I'm not one for conspiracy theories. Their is nothing stopping anyone from expressing their opinion whenever.
On the local level, Sinclair Broadcasting, which has a Conservative slant, owns many, if not most, of the local television broadcast stations in this country. On cable television, Fox News has a lot of exposure. They have been surpassing CNN in the ratings lately. Not to mention talk radio. Conservative thought has a strong presence in print media. The WSJ is a good example, even though their writers still cater to a mass audience without being consumed by their political slant.
Conservatives can post their opinions whenever they want about various topics on FB, Twitter, or any other social platform without nothing stopping them. Now whether that post gets attention due to its merits is a different story. If their was censorship, then Conservatives wouldn't even be able to post what they wanted to in the first place. So the fact that they can post at all and express their opinion on social media without question debunks the myth that there views are being silenced.
Conservative opinions are well represented on the internet as well through various social media platforms. The very fact that this congested pigeon sees unwanted YouTube ads from Conservative think-tank groups is validation that there is no censoring taking place Despite this, their are many reasons why many Conservatives nationwide feel that their opinions are being suppressed.
It's Happening Because Trump Says It Happening, And People Will Believe Him At Face Value
One reason why
people feel this way is because Trump is making the declaration.
Many
will accept what he says at face value without research and run with it.
For example, despite the fact that the claim he made about 3 million
undocumented immigrants voting in the 2016 Election is a fabrication and
has been debunked, many believe his claim as doctrine, even now. This
is after various studies have disproved his claim.
I was watching a YouTube clip that my brother was playing on Chromecast of the Daily Show with Trevor Noah. Even though the Daily Show presents the news as satire and comic relief, their is a lot of relevance to it. One can make a very strong assumption that Fox News is the only source of news that Trump gets his news from, given his mentality. He holds disdain for media that doesn't view him in glowing light and cult worship, which is essentially everybody except Fox News.
At this point, I will moderate my views about this news outlet. They are a legitimate source that one can reference as long as that's not the only place where one gets their news from. That's actually true with various sources of news period, regardless of there corporate and/or political slants. For me personally, I get my news from the BBC World News, The Guardian, Wikipedia News, and PBS News because they are the best sources for objective and rational news reporting. That's just my opinion though. Occasionally, I watch investigative journalism in the form Frontline. Fake news will be debunked with the help of PolitiFact, Snopes, and FactCheck.org. Again, that's just my personal preferences though.
With that said, I feel that those that use Fox News as their one and only news reference is going to have a very ummm.... different worldview. Fox News has been constantly telling their viewers (including Trump) that their is censorship of Conservative media (even though their isn't). He is most likely going to believe them without question, as anyone else who watches their programming. Since Fox News is the only news source that cast him in a glowing light, he won't seek a alternative opinion. Trump will take their claims and run with it.
I was watching a YouTube clip that my brother was playing on Chromecast of the Daily Show with Trevor Noah. Even though the Daily Show presents the news as satire and comic relief, their is a lot of relevance to it. One can make a very strong assumption that Fox News is the only source of news that Trump gets his news from, given his mentality. He holds disdain for media that doesn't view him in glowing light and cult worship, which is essentially everybody except Fox News.
At this point, I will moderate my views about this news outlet. They are a legitimate source that one can reference as long as that's not the only place where one gets their news from. That's actually true with various sources of news period, regardless of there corporate and/or political slants. For me personally, I get my news from the BBC World News, The Guardian, Wikipedia News, and PBS News because they are the best sources for objective and rational news reporting. That's just my opinion though. Occasionally, I watch investigative journalism in the form Frontline. Fake news will be debunked with the help of PolitiFact, Snopes, and FactCheck.org. Again, that's just my personal preferences though.
With that said, I feel that those that use Fox News as their one and only news reference is going to have a very ummm.... different worldview. Fox News has been constantly telling their viewers (including Trump) that their is censorship of Conservative media (even though their isn't). He is most likely going to believe them without question, as anyone else who watches their programming. Since Fox News is the only news source that cast him in a glowing light, he won't seek a alternative opinion. Trump will take their claims and run with it.
It's Censorship Because Conservatives Don't Have Total Control Of The Media
Also, I feel that
their is the perception of Conservative news censorship because many
equate censorship as not having domination of thought. Essentially,
there's censorship because they are not the thought police. One could
conclude that the reasons why many Conservatives are upset is because
their opinions aren't the only one represented. In the competition for
thought, many would want a monopoly on political views. That's just my
personal opinion though.
Because of this perceived censorship, this offends the poster in the process. Instead of considering the idea that people just ignored the post based on the merit of the article or meme in question, there is somehow a grand conspiracy behind it. That means that if nobody reads this article, it not because of the merit of the content. Their are secret forces at work conspiring to keep this article hidden from the public eye (Or I'm just a random voice among many is a sea of voices too. That sounds bleak actually!).
As with the Daily Show clip
posted below, many feel their opinion is being suppressed because they
feel that their post is not getting the attention it deserves. As the
video jokingly states, everybody feels that one of their is going to
break the internet. People want their thoughts and opinions to be
validated when they post something. When nobody comments on that post or
ignore it, they might get the idea that their opinion is going to be
censored.
Because of this perceived censorship, this offends the poster in the process. Instead of considering the idea that people just ignored the post based on the merit of the article or meme in question, there is somehow a grand conspiracy behind it. That means that if nobody reads this article, it not because of the merit of the content. Their are secret forces at work conspiring to keep this article hidden from the public eye (Or I'm just a random voice among many is a sea of voices too. That sounds bleak actually!).
Google And Facebook
Both Facebook
and Google have received a lot of flak (rightfully so) about fake news.
They have ignored the problem for way too long, and is now rampant
because of it. As a result, both companies have launched a massive
crackdown on it. Publishers of fake news on both sides of the political
spectrum had accounts closed because of it.
Despite this, many Conservative feel that their views are being silenced because several of those editors have a Conservative leanings. Several interpreted the crackdown on fake news as a crackdown on Conservative media. This is a huge concern on Facebook, as many are declaring that the company is acting like the thought police. This is despite the fact that the fake news crackdown affected both political slants. The irony presented though is most of those who constantly complain about fake news on FB are very critical of the company when they take steps against it. The phrase "You're Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't" is very appropriate here.
Despite this, many Conservative feel that their views are being silenced because several of those editors have a Conservative leanings. Several interpreted the crackdown on fake news as a crackdown on Conservative media. This is a huge concern on Facebook, as many are declaring that the company is acting like the thought police. This is despite the fact that the fake news crackdown affected both political slants. The irony presented though is most of those who constantly complain about fake news on FB are very critical of the company when they take steps against it. The phrase "You're Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't" is very appropriate here.
Many feel that the company does deserve a huge amounts of
criticism, and I would agree. In the pursuit of profit, they ignored
fundamental problems that allowed fake news to get so rampant. Those
earning the profits weren't concerned of the potential problems that
could occur.
Also, there was a grand vision that connecting everybody would result in peace through understanding. They failed to realize is that there platform became a powerful tool to spread hate and misinformation. The tools were so easy to use that this was very easy to do. The platform became a recruitment tool for anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorist, and Russian agents spreading fake news to cause political hostility and divisiveness.
Also, there was a grand vision that connecting everybody would result in peace through understanding. They failed to realize is that there platform became a powerful tool to spread hate and misinformation. The tools were so easy to use that this was very easy to do. The platform became a recruitment tool for anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorist, and Russian agents spreading fake news to cause political hostility and divisiveness.
Google's search liaison, Danny Sullivan, stated that Google Search was never a "Truth Engine". Google never claimed that the links on their search engine were true. It's more of a search of relevance. Entries are ranked by popularity and relevance, and are chosen by those who use the search, not the engine itself.
The articles with the most clicks are going to be at the top of the search. As a result, the top links are determined by what people find most relevant. This means that there is a possibility that a story at the top could be fabricated. This is a major issue for those who don't do critical thinking and takes everything at face value. Essentially, the type of person that will believe anything they read on the Internet. That though isn't a Google issue, but a society issue. A society issue in that emphasis isn't placed on critical thinking skills. This is why I feel that research and fact checking on the end-user side is essential.
Now don't get me wrong. Most of what is presented on Google Search is either relevant or true. However, that should not be a excuse for people to become lazy mentally and not do critical thinking. This confirms the point that search engines themselves politically agnostic, and those search results are determined by what the user determines is the most popular. Also, the internet thrives on negativity, regardless of political affiliation, as the Internet in general can be a very negative place, regardless of the political slant. Google searches skyrocket when theirs's controversy.
There are contradictions presented to those making these claims. How can Trump claim that social media was against him if he was able to win because of it. One could make a valid argument that if anything, the results are more catered towards Conservative interest. Even though the source code doesn't have a bias, the results of the search engines can be manipulated. Several have discovered this other the years. With all the perceived liberal bias of search results as claimed by Conservatives, it should be noted that one of the first people do discover search engine manipulation wasn't a leftist or liberal; it was Alex Jones.
Alex Jones
Alex Jones realized
early on that InfoWars articles could be pushed to the top of Google
searches if enough of his followers would make it happen. He would
regular tell his listeners to constantly click and re-click his articles
and manipulate the search engines so that they would start showing up
at the top of the results.
With social media exploding, InfoWars articles quickly dominated a lot of traffic. They had massive traffic of Facebook. At this point, it should be noted that If the search engines were liberal-biased, then InfoWars would have never become very prominent within social media in the first place.
I do feel that the idea of people becoming violently vocal about the idea that Conservative opinion is being censured will get much worse. Earlier, I was hesitant about the removal of Alex Jones's presence from social media because many of his viewers are fanatical, and they would make someone a martyr out of someone who shouldn't be one. They will believe the conspiracy banter echoed by Alex Jones without giving it second thought or checking the validity of the claims made. Many view is words as a call to arms.
Several Trump supports, many of who are Alex Jones's fans, showed violence to news reporters at several of his political rallies earlier this year. Alex Jones has been telling his viewers that Democrats are policing and censoring Conservatives. Democrats are purging Conservative opinion. In Alex Jones's mindset, having a difference of opinion that doesn't conform to the far right is viewed as a suppression of Conservative though that is comparable to the censorship that occurs in China.
His actions though make a very compelling reason for his removal. His rhetoric have caused several of his followers to threaten the parents of those who lost there kids in the Sandy Hook shooting. Several shootings have been committed, like the one on Gabby Giffords, was inspired by a listener who regularly listen to Alex Jones's rhetoric and viewed the language used as a call to action.
With social media exploding, InfoWars articles quickly dominated a lot of traffic. They had massive traffic of Facebook. At this point, it should be noted that If the search engines were liberal-biased, then InfoWars would have never become very prominent within social media in the first place.
I do feel that the idea of people becoming violently vocal about the idea that Conservative opinion is being censured will get much worse. Earlier, I was hesitant about the removal of Alex Jones's presence from social media because many of his viewers are fanatical, and they would make someone a martyr out of someone who shouldn't be one. They will believe the conspiracy banter echoed by Alex Jones without giving it second thought or checking the validity of the claims made. Many view is words as a call to arms.
Several Trump supports, many of who are Alex Jones's fans, showed violence to news reporters at several of his political rallies earlier this year. Alex Jones has been telling his viewers that Democrats are policing and censoring Conservatives. Democrats are purging Conservative opinion. In Alex Jones's mindset, having a difference of opinion that doesn't conform to the far right is viewed as a suppression of Conservative though that is comparable to the censorship that occurs in China.
His actions though make a very compelling reason for his removal. His rhetoric have caused several of his followers to threaten the parents of those who lost there kids in the Sandy Hook shooting. Several shootings have been committed, like the one on Gabby Giffords, was inspired by a listener who regularly listen to Alex Jones's rhetoric and viewed the language used as a call to action.
However, I do still feel that the ban is going to
turn someone who shouldn't be a free-speech martyr into one. In fact,
this is turning a issue that isn't even a free speech issue into one.
Twitter is a publicly traded company, and not a government agency. He
was removed because he violated the companies terms of service. The
First Amendment protects one against government interference of free
speech and expression, but not private companies terms of services.
Violations of freedom of speech doesn't apply here. Also, freedom of
speech doesn't mean freedom of consequence.
Freedom of speech may not protect against lying and spreading deceitful information to cash in a horrible event. This is seen from the fallout of the Sandy Hook controversy with Alex Jones declaring that the shooting never took place, despite it being common knowledge. There's evidence everywhere that showed it did occur, including the very unfortunate deaths of those children killed, proving that the shooting occurred. Someone declaring that Sandy Hook never happened runs parallel to those that deny the Holocaust.
Freedom of speech may not protect against lying and spreading deceitful information to cash in a horrible event. This is seen from the fallout of the Sandy Hook controversy with Alex Jones declaring that the shooting never took place, despite it being common knowledge. There's evidence everywhere that showed it did occur, including the very unfortunate deaths of those children killed, proving that the shooting occurred. Someone declaring that Sandy Hook never happened runs parallel to those that deny the Holocaust.
Since many of his viewers embrace conspiracy theories and feel as
if their being persecuted, the ban on social media will play into there
mindsets. They will view his ban as a continued assault on the
suppression of Conservative thought, even though this ban had nothing to
do because of his political views. This is the political equivalent of
mixing apples and oranges. However, his viewers will still see it as
such.
Potential Consequences
I believe that fake
news is very dangerous and harmful, and it has to be dealt with. With
that said, I'm nervous when Trump talks about it. I don't trust the
Republican Party and its intentions when it comes to this issue. Also,
Trump's definition of fake news is different from everybody else's. With
most people, fake news means exactly how it's phrased: news that
fabricated. With him, fake news is anything that cast him or his
Administration in a negative light, even when the news is factual and
validated, as it is the vast majority of the time. As a result, when he
talks about censoring fake news, he wants to censor alternate and/or
opposition viewpoints. He will play into bogus conspiracy theories that
aren't based in reality in reinforce his argument.
Many people hold a strong disdain to fake news, as they should. However, I feel that people rallying to Trump's declaration is concerning because I feel that he doesn't operate with the best of intentions. People rallying to his fake news cause might inadvertently give him the green light to promote policies that would violates people's freedom of expression and try to silent opinions that don't conform to his own.
Some will see this as a opportunity to apply freedom only to those who conform to the ideas and beliefs of the President, with equal, civic rights being damned in the process. Freedom of expression applies to everybody, regardless of their political affiliation. Many feel, including me, that he will infringe on Constitutional Rights to silence alternative opinions and viewpoints. This mentality highly alludes to this. Earlier last year, he called the free press the "enemy of the people".
If people didn't post things based on impulse and emotion, then the problem of fake news would be a lot less rampant. However, one still has to deal with the issue of the perceived feelings that their opinions are being suppressed because they been critiqued or challenged. I will end the article with this: The idea that Conservative opinion is censured is a moot point because it's not happening.
Many people hold a strong disdain to fake news, as they should. However, I feel that people rallying to Trump's declaration is concerning because I feel that he doesn't operate with the best of intentions. People rallying to his fake news cause might inadvertently give him the green light to promote policies that would violates people's freedom of expression and try to silent opinions that don't conform to his own.
Some will see this as a opportunity to apply freedom only to those who conform to the ideas and beliefs of the President, with equal, civic rights being damned in the process. Freedom of expression applies to everybody, regardless of their political affiliation. Many feel, including me, that he will infringe on Constitutional Rights to silence alternative opinions and viewpoints. This mentality highly alludes to this. Earlier last year, he called the free press the "enemy of the people".
The most effective way of fighting fake news is to take the
initiative and apply critical think. The main reason why fake news is so
out of control in the first place is that many will believe whatever
they read on the Internet as the gospel truth. Nobody will apply
critical thinking skills to the articles in question. I would highly
recommended getting to the practice of checking the claims that a
article or political meme is making before posting it. Opinions pieces
are one thing, but false facts are another. I would stress that we
shouldn't get into the habit of posting articles on impulse, including
this one you're reading. Many articles are sensationalist pieces that's
meant to serve as click-bait. Their intention is to stir controversy and
being divisive in nature so they can generate the most clicks.
After the confirmed incidents of Russian agents spreading fake news on both Facebook and Google, I feel that steps need to be taken to prevent fake news. Some would consider the need for the internet equivalent of the "Fairness Doctrine" for major American news websites, similar to what TV News were regulated by before it was done away with in the 1980's. Political parties would receive equal, unbiased, objective and rational reporting that 's not slanted in a particular direction.
If regulation is needed, then it would have to be implemented in a bi-partisan measure that still provides people's expression of opinion, and the difference of opinions needs to be respected. The irony here is that the Republicans claim to champion smaller government. Yet, when theirs's something that could hurt them politically, then they're calling for strict regulations on the entity in question (when its convenient for them).
People have to be on guard against fake news, and sites like Snopes,
FactCheck.org, and PolitiFact offer great resources to check news pieces
and challenge sensationalist click-bait. After the confirmed incidents of Russian agents spreading fake news on both Facebook and Google, I feel that steps need to be taken to prevent fake news. Some would consider the need for the internet equivalent of the "Fairness Doctrine" for major American news websites, similar to what TV News were regulated by before it was done away with in the 1980's. Political parties would receive equal, unbiased, objective and rational reporting that 's not slanted in a particular direction.
If regulation is needed, then it would have to be implemented in a bi-partisan measure that still provides people's expression of opinion, and the difference of opinions needs to be respected. The irony here is that the Republicans claim to champion smaller government. Yet, when theirs's something that could hurt them politically, then they're calling for strict regulations on the entity in question (when its convenient for them).
If people didn't post things based on impulse and emotion, then the problem of fake news would be a lot less rampant. However, one still has to deal with the issue of the perceived feelings that their opinions are being suppressed because they been critiqued or challenged. I will end the article with this: The idea that Conservative opinion is censured is a moot point because it's not happening.
Google Is Not A "Truth Engine," But People Think It is
WWW.EYERYS.COM
The Growth of Sinclair’s Conservative Media Empire
The New Yorker
WWW.NEWYORKER.COM
No, 96% of Google news stories on Trump aren't from left-wing outlets
WWW.POLITIFACT.COM
Radio host: Only conservatives get banned on Facebook
WWW.POLITIFACT.COM
Why Infowars’ Alex Jones was banned from Apple, Facebook, Youtube and Spotify
WWW.POLITIFACT.COM
Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Jones, Infowars, Citing Abuse
WWW.SNOPES.COM
Twitter bans Alex Jones and Infowars for abusive behaviour
WWW.BBC.COM
Alex Jones, Infowars, and the new public sphere
WWW.BBC.COM
YouTube Bans Alex Jones And InfoWars Channels Citing Hate Speech, Harassment
WWW.HUFFINGTONPOST.COM
Alex Jones Begs Donald Trump For Help After He’s Dumped By YouTube, Spotify And Facebook
WWW.HUFFINGTONPOST.COM
Comments
Post a Comment