In my new book on free speech, I discuss at length how the mainstream media has joined an alliance with the government and corporations in favor of censorship and blacklisting. The Washington Post, however, appears to be taking its anti-free speech campaign to a new level with open calls for a crackdown. The newspaper offered no objection or even qualification after its reporter, Cleve Wootson Jr., appeared to call upon the White House to censor the interview of Elon Musk with former President Donald Trump. Under the guise of a question, Wootson told White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre that censoring its leading political opponent is “an America issue.”
During Monday’s press briefing, the Washington Post’s Cleve Wootson Jr. flagged the interview and said “I think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue…it’s an America issue.” After making that affirmative statement, Wootson then asked
“…What role does the White House or the president have in sort of stopping that or stopping the spread of that or sort of intervening in that? Some of that was about campaign misinformation, but, you know, it’s a wider thing, right?”
Note how his question was really a political statement. Wootson begins by stating as a fact that Musk and X are engaging in disinformation and it is a threat to the country. He then asks a perfunctory softball question at the end to maintain appearances.
Jean-Pierre’s response was equally telling. While noting that this is a private company, she praised the Washington Post for calling for action, saying “[i]t is incredibly important to call that out, as you’re doing. I just don’t have any specifics on what we have been doing internally.”
So let’s recap. The Washington Post used a White House presser to call for censorship of one of the leading candidates for the White House and then demanded to know what the White House would do about it. The censorship was framed as an “America issue.”
There was a time when a reporter calling for censorship of a political opponent would have been a matter for immediate termination in the media. Instead, the newspaper that prides itself on the slogan “Democracy dies in Darkness,” has been entirely silent. No correction. No qualification.
The Washington Post has long run columns supporting censorship of information that it deems disinformation or misinformation. For many of us in the free speech community, it has become one of the most hostile newspapers to free speech values.
Now censorship has become “an America issue” for the Washington Post. The collapse of any semblance of support for free speech is complete.
The call for censorship for disinformation is ironic given the Post’s publication of a series of false stories and conspiracy theories. When confronted about columnists with demonstrably false statements, the Post simply shrugged.
One of the most striking examples was after its columnist Philip Bump had a meltdown in an interview when confronted over past false claims. After I wrote a column about the litany of such false claims, the Post surprised many of us by issuing a statement that they stood by all of Bump’s reporting, including false columns on the Lafayette Park protests, Hunter Biden laptop and other stories. That was long after other media debunked the claims, but the Post stood by the false reporting.
The decline of the Post has followed a familiar pattern. The editors and reporters simply wrote off half of their audience and became a publication for largely liberal and Democratic readers. In these difficult economic times with limited revenue sources, it is a lethal decision.
Robert Lewis, a British media executive who joined the Post earlier this year, reportedly got into a “heated exchange” with a staffer. Lewis explained that, while reporters were protesting measures to expand readership, the very survival of the paper was now at stake:
“We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,” Lewis said. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
Other staffers could not get beyond the gender and race of those who would be overseeing them. One staffer complained “we now have four White men running three newsrooms.”
Yet, in this case, a reporter openly advocated for censorship and pushed the White House to take action against X and Trump; to use government authority to “intervene” to stop Trump from being able to make certain claims on social media.
We have previously written how the level of advocacy and bias in the press has created a danger of a de facto state media in the United States. It is possible to have such a system by consent rather than coercion. The Biden White House has become more open in its marching orders to media, including a letter drafted by the Biden White House Legal Counsel’s Office calling for major media to “ramp up their scrutiny” of House Republicans. President Biden has even instructed reporters “[t]hat is not the judgment of the press” when asked tough questions.
To the credit of the Post, it is not killing “democracy in the darkness.” This incident occurred in the light of day for all to see as its reporter pushed the White House for the censoring of political opponents.
So what if a reporter asked a question about censoring Trump? Asking does not mean it will be acted upon. That interview was an incoherent mess. He sounded drunk.
This article is about plugging Turley’s book more than anything else. Trump and Elon Musk broadcast the interview live and worldwide. There’s no way this could be censored in any fashion. Everyone knows about this interview and it’s being mocked and ridiculed for its incoherent ranting and weird anecdotal quips about conversations with Putin that made it sound like it was scripted by Wayne and Garth. Everyone knew it was BS. If that is his negotiating style then nobody will take him seriously.
“ So let’s recap. The Washington Post used a White House presser to call for censorship of one of the leading candidates for the White House and then demanded to know what the White House would do about it.”
The reporter didn’t demand anything. He asked. That’s how Turley deliberately mischaracterizes a narrative to paint a false one for his readers. He asked a question about censoring Trump. He can do that and it’s perfectly in line with free speech principles Turley adores. Asking is not going to lead to the White House to censor Trump. If other private platforms wish to do so they absolutely can. But why would they? The interview itself can be used to showcase Trump’s incompetence and incoherent ramblings. Leaving it alone makes a case of clear distinction between Trump and Harris and that distinction is working in Harris’s favor. She’s leading in the polls and the enthusiasm and energy of her candidacy is overshadowing Trump’s. He clearly isn’t handling it well and instead of listening to his allies, which is rare, he chooses to do what he knows best, hurl insults, gripe about crowd sizes, and peddle BS stories that everyone sees them for what they are….BS stories.
‘George’, I’m just asking, not demanding.
Could you write something that ISN’T
peddling “BS stories that everyone sees them for what they are….BS stories”?
You seem to think that questions are all inherently neutral.
If I ask “How many times have you raped your secretary today ?”
Is that just another question.
John say, false equivalence. Not ALL questions are inherently neutral.
They can also be purely rhetorical which seems to be the case with the question Turley is criticizing.
Turley used a reporter’s rhetorical question followed by asking what would the White House do. As he usually does, he intentionally mischaracterized it to give his already gullible readers what they want to hear AND plug his book.
And if it was asked that a Republican president be censored,
George would be here saying ‘SEE, that’s what fascists do’
(or whatever the talking points of the day were he’d be repeating).
“So what if a reporter asked a question about censoring Trump? Asking does not mean it will be acted upon.”
When the news media ASKS why the WH is NOT censoring – there is a HUGE problems.
What problems? Asking is not demanding action. The reporter just asked a question. It’s not a call for censorship. Has anything been censored because of it?
“That interview was an incoherent mess. He sounded drunk.”
When YOU say that – I presume it is false.
YOU said Biden was coherent. Clearly you are clueless.
John Say,
They, MSM, have told us, gaslighted us, lied to us, that Biden was “sharp as a tack!”
Why should we believe anything MSM says?
They lie.
They are not credible.
They cannot be trusted.
Yet, we see nearly everyday here on the good professor’s blog trolls commenting MSM lies, Biden lies and now Harris/Waltz lies.
Leftists Democrats, different from sane and normal Democrats, should not be believed, trusted, or taken seriously. They need to be exercised from the Democrat party with extreme prejudice. And Democrats need to do it.
Did you watch the whole interview? I assume you did not.
“YOU said Biden was coherent. Clearly you are clueless.”
There was a time when he was consistently coherent. Trump never was.
“This article is about plugging Turley’s book more than anything else. ”
Turley writes about free speech. Turley blogs about free speech and the law.,
95% of the articles here will tie to the book.
Free speech si incredibly important – that is why Turley wrote a book.
I though the left like “experts” – Turley is a pre-eminent expert on free speech
If you bought your own falacious arguments you would be OBLIGATED to treat Turley as Gospel.
So you agree, this article is about plugging his book.
“Trump and Elon Musk broadcast the interview live and worldwide. There’s no way this could be censored in any fashion. ”
Of course it could – NY Post did an article on the Biden syndicate corruption featuring the Hunter Biden laptop.
The Post story was available (except briefly when NY Post was blocked) through the entire election – it was still censored all over the place.
Many people had to work hard to find it, and the media and the govenrment and Social media and idiot left wing deep state nutjobs all told us it was false informantion – lies manufactured by Russia.
That is Censorship.
“Trump and Elon Musk broadcast the interview live and worldwide. There’s no way this could be censored in any fashion. ”
Of course it could – NY Post did an article on the Biden syndicate corruption featuring the Hunter Biden laptop.”
What does that have to do with the interview? It wasn’t censored.
You know of the laptop, everyone knows of the laptop. How was that censorship? The story was withheld for 24 hrs to verify its authenticity. They were not sure if the story was legit. How was that censorship?
People had a hard time finding it because it was not a fully verified story. Remember, this was during the skepticism surrounding Russian interference.
Because there was a lot of talk of false information news organizations HAD to verify it. It wasn’t censorship. They had to be cautious of what they published because IF it turned out to be a false story they would have to explain why they didn’t do their job of verifying the authenticity of the story.
Republicans just went with the “censorship” angle for political reasons.
“Everyone knows about this interview”
No mostly only people who closely follow politics are aware of it.
“and it’s being mocked and ridiculed for its incoherent ranting and weird anecdotal quips about conversations with Putin that made it sound like it was scripted by Wayne and Garth.”
That narative is being sold by the left. – it is not being sold by everyone.
Neither you nor the left are trustworthy sources.
Regardless have you listened to it ?
If not, then why should anyone care what you say about someothing you have not heard ?
” Everyone knew it was BS. If that is his negotiating style then nobody will take him seriously.”
He is a multi billionaire – whatever his negotiating style – it is self evident that it works.
That is a stupid argument.
Regardless, Again why should your view about something you have not heard about someone you lie about constantly be taken credibly ?
“Neither you nor the left are trustworthy sources.
Regardless have you listened to it ?”
I did listen to it. Did you?
“Everyone knows about this interview”
No mostly only people who closely follow politics are aware of it.”
No, everyone knows about it. It’s all over the news, late night shows, YouTube, etc.
“and it’s being mocked and ridiculed for its incoherent ranting and weird anecdotal quips about conversations with Putin that made it sound like it was scripted by Wayne and Garth.”
That narative is being sold by the left. – it is not being sold by everyone.”
Well DUH! The right is too embarrassed to try to explain what it is that Trump was saying. They are not going to mention what he said. They will paraphrase and “make sense” of what he said without quoting him directly because it’s too incoherent and embarrassing. Trump sounds worse than Biden now that he’s out of the race.
“He is a multi billionaire – whatever his negotiating style – it is self evident that it works.
That is a stupid argument.”
What, billionaires can’t be morons? Trump had proven it can be possible.
His negotiating style is talking like a high school teenager from the 90’s. Like, no way. Way. He was making it up as he went along. He can’t help himself when he is given the opportunity to lie. Compulsive liars tend to have a bad habit of telling BS stories that clearly are BS.
“ So let’s recap.”
No need – it is already aparent you are clueless, do not know what you are talking about, incapable of critical thinking and delusional.
It is always a big deal when the Press asks why someing is NOT being censored.
That poses TWO huge problems
Why is the press seeking censorship – we have seen many instances of that running well beyond Trump.
The press should have been defending Asange to the hilt. But because he pissed of Hillary the PRESS FAILED to defend freedom of the press.
That is a huge and vile problem.
The 2nd is Why would the press beleive that the WH would censor ?
The federal govenrment is constitutionally barred from doing so.
Asking suggests that the reporter beleived the WH would ignore the constitution.
Joni say,
““ So let’s recap.”
No need – it is already aparent you are clueless, do not know what you are talking about, incapable of critical thinking and delusional.”
WTF are you talking about? That’s from Turley’s column. Clearly I’m not the one who has issues with critical thinking.
And? It doesn’t change the fact that it’s true. That’s even everyone is making fun of it. Not just Fallon. Plus I did listen to it. It’s was as bad as they say.
So when will the WaPo call for the censoring of the disinformation in the Supreme Court’s Wong Kim Ark case, which resides at the core of the question: is Kamala Harris even constitutionally eligible to the presidency as a “natural born Citizen?” I’ll wait.
Why do Indians like Russia so much? And why are Republicans pandering to Indians?
Hard to imagine an American “reporter” suggesting the government censor any other American journalist or citizen.
Maybe this guy should have this printed on top of all his notepad’s?
“or abridging the freedom of speech”
Harder to imagine the nerve of a British official threatening American citizens right to free speech while in their own country.
But the Europeans do. In 2024 it doesn’t matter where you are. Censorship can reach over borders with electronic communications. Did you see the letter from Thierry Breton of the European Union warning Musk to do exactly what this reporter was advocating for.
Margot, most American journalists didn’t seem to have much problem
doing everything they could to help censor Julian Assange.
“Holy George Santayana, Batman.” More concerning than the question was the individual who put it.
How likely is it that Cleve Wootson’s ill-formed question was not arranged in advance with the White House (whoever is running it) and the hierarchy of the Washington Post?
So, because they “refused to say what they would do about it” you are left with assuming a lot of things not in evidence.
They don’t even try to mask their contempt for our constitution; and I truly believe it is because they have been so deluded and brainwashed that they actually believe that they are the champions
No lamebrain, you’re brainwashed. Trump called for the suspension of the Constitution and you give him a pass.
Exposing a truth doesn’t make things better.
Seriously? I can agree that exposing “a” truth may make some specific situation far worse than otherwise, but as a general rule exposing truths makes for a more free and just society in due course. One sometimes has to suffer short-term/ isolated harms for a greater good, even harm that comes to some through no decision or fault of their own.
But, irrespective of this view, which you may not share, government should not, except in the most limited and extreme and specific cases, either directly through law or regulation, or indirectly through pressure on or collusion with private parties, prevent the exposure of truth. The Supreme Court made this quite clear, and correctly so, in its New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) decision (The Pentagon Papers case). It’s one thing for the government to conceal — and not expose — their own “truths” (an assertion that almost all citizens would agree to, with varying degrees of limitation); it’s quite another for the government to suppress the “truths” of others…or to decide what is “true” and what is not. Have you read “1984”? If not, you should. Oour current government, both elected and appointed, as well as our mainstream media, and academe are chillingly like “The Party” (in 1984). Chillingly like.
If you disagree with the above, then you need to go a long way to argue against the extensive historical analysis and insight into human nature contained in the thinking and writing of our Founders. Not ascribing the following to anyone here, but many, if not most, progressives tend to dismiss that analysis out of hand (without having read it or understanding it) because our Founders are “dead white men,” as though that description by itself has any meaning in well-considered debate about what makes for a civil society.
Excellent.
Imagine if the truth that secession was not prohibited and was fully constitutional had been promulgated in 1860.
There would have been no “Reign of Terror” by “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, no Civil War, and no “RECONSTRUCTION Amendments” conjured by Karl Marx himself.
Southern States would have seceded, failed, and reunited.
Reprehensible slavery would have been legislatively abrogated; the freed slaves would have been safely and compassionately repatriated per the immigration law of the Founders.
American freedom would have continued.
______________________________________________
“We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority [The Confederate States did not vote in the “fixed” election of 1864].”
“[The working men of Europe] consider…that it fell to…Abraham Lincoln…to lead his country through the…RECONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL WORLD. [B]”
– Letter Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln,1865 https://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
“[W]hat role does the White House or the president have in sort of stopping that or stopping the spread of that . . .”
In the modern era, there are two types of government censorship: The fascist type, where government bureaucrats use private industry as de facto censors. (See the Twitter files.) And the communist type, where government openly bans dissent. (See Soviet Russia and China today.)
Congratulations, Leftists. You are infected with both types.
Good morning, noble savages!
John Say says: “A platform is either a publisher – like WaPo or NYT and it decides what content it will carry and what content it will feature and then it has liability for that content – it can be sued for defamation as an example…Or a platfrom is a carrier [like X] – and it must be open to all.”
Not in contradiction to the above, necessarily, but primarily to add to the exchange between Say and Anonymous, two points:
(1) Elon Musk and Donald Trump are free to live-stream or post a video of a conversation between them on X. Musk did not, in his role as owner of X, “make a decision to carry” his live stream with Trump in a way that excludes others from live-streaming whatever they want. He is free to talk on X with whomever he wants about whatever he wants, as is anyone else subject to the very broad content guidelines X has established.
(2) If one would argue that speaking with Trump for 2 hours on X in some way “crosses a line” in regard to X’s function or in regard to its rights and responsibilities as a “platform,” Musk (not X) has offered the same opportunity to Ms. Harris, so he has even gone beyond what is required of him as a citizen. X has taken no position one way or the other in these matters other than to allow the Musk-Trump discussion to be carried, which as a platform it has a responsibility to do. Robert Kennedy, Jr. is not a nominee of one of the two major parties and is only on something like 14 or so State ballots currently, so it’s not unreasonable for Musk to not explicitly extend that same invitation to Kennedy, although it would not surprise me if he were willing to have the same conversation with Kennedy if asked, but is under no obligation to do so.
People seem to get wrapped around their axle that Musk owns X — in fact, he’s not the sole owner of X — while they seem to ignore the fact and implication that Jeff Bezos, who is clearly a progressive Democrat, is the SOLE owner of The Washington Post. Let’s see: X is a platform, open to all (including Musk and Trump and Harris and Walz and…), whereas WaPo is tightly controlled in what it publishes. Got it.
Interesting insights, thanks.
Jeez, JT, am I allowed to tune out info I suspect as unreliable? I promise to keep an open mind, and not recoil from info just because it was unexpected, or unsettling. I want to understand the thinking of those who see things differently, and often ask “Where did you get that information?” I will do my own investigation to see what is behind it.
But, if my radar detector tells me this person is gaslighting me, what do you expect me to do with that info? Can I ignore it as irrelevant? Not repeat it to anyone I know? Am I “censoring” when I make that choice? Is there some unwritten obligation for me to pass along stuff that’s just whacko in my open-minded judgment?
We all have a this right to editorial judgment — everybody does it — it’s awkward even attaching a name to it. It’s part of the constellation of freedoms clustered under autonomy.
The battle over free speech should be framed as a quest for open-mindedness. The harm comes when people become closed-minded, unwilling to entertain ideas that are well-meaning, civilly-articulated, fact-based, yet discordant with prior understanding. We should fight against the closing of the American mind to ideas that are counter-intuitive and sincerely meant to be helpful.
But, please don’t expect us to give up editorial judgment to ignore the patently absurd ramblings of the type “I looked out on the (Ellipse) crowd, and it was the largest gathering ever in Washington….they say 25,000….Dr. King had a million, which I’ll say was larger because I like Dr. King….”
This is the deranged word salad of a seriously disturbed individual suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. It does not deserve to be passed along. It doesn’t meet the threshold of seriousness. Am I being closed-minded in some way to think, this guy is off his rocker?
Let’s try to keep the censorship topic focussed on acts of closed-mindedness in response to well-articulated, civilly-expressed, well-meaning, cogent ideas. Yes, let’s not allow “editorial judgment” to become a euphemism for used as a fig leaf to justify closed-mindedness. This is a quest where we can find common ground.
But, it makes you look foolish to expect open-minded people to accept the bizarre, the obviously mistaken, the misanthropic, the brazenly outlandish, the purposely malicious, the shallowly oppo-branding, or senile ramblings the same way we would treat serious disagreement offered up respectfully.
You yourself unconsciously weed out the chaff from the wheat every day. It’s what open-minded people just do as part of being human. That’s not “censorship”…it’s common sense processing of information.
You got a lot of things going on in your head. Suggest you see a psych asap. good luck!
Question , you a dem?
Independent.
Pbinca, fantastic post! Couldn’t agree more.
No, I didn’t say I agree with the reporter. I said what he asked is perfectly fine. He can do that. As a reporter it’s his job to ask questions.
Your reading comprehension as usual clouds your understanding of what was said. Or it could be that you just love putting words into people’s mouths.
@ George: Your approval ( fantastic post!) of Pbinca’s post tells everyone how aligned you two are. The only question is whether that will damage or improve Pbinca’s reputation.
From the snickers, I hear your lies and ignorance aren’t an added plus for Pbinca.
They are one and the same person.
Trolls adopt writing voices just like all writers. The Act Blue paid DNC troll, fashioned in the image of David Brock, has spent his time crafting writing voices to give the impression a throng of commenters support his politics. He is following Saul Alinsky’s Rule for Radicals #1
A clue is the timing of replies to comments if you can not discern the different styles in writing voices. PBinCA is Dennis, is George, is Svelaz, is Peter Shill, is Ralph, is Gigi, etc, etc, etc. As a reminder here are the Saul Alinsky rules
The Rules
“Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
“Never go outside the experience of your people.”
“Whenever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy.”
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
“Keep the pressure on.”
“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
“If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.”
“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
Estovir,
That is why I just scroll past. Nothing they write is worth reading. It is like WaPo, NYT, Huff Post. I would never buy any of those rags. Or like CNN, MSNBC, or NPR. I never would tune into any of those MSM. Dont have to switch the channel as I never tuned in, in the first place.
Takes away any power they might even think they have. They dont.
Just scroll past.
Estovir, you may be correct, but I don’t think so. Pbinca has some misplaced logic, but Dennis has none. I think Pbinca’s IQ registers. George’s IQ is below what someone would notice. George is Svelaz, Peter Shill and a slew of names, many of which appeared as movie characters. I suspect George had a low-level job involving the movies, but he may have also had other jobs. None of them required a mind that needed to think for itself. He is so dumb that he is immune to criticism.
I love Alinsky. He was a thief and dishonorable, but he had some valuable points. Many years ago, an anti-Alinsky book was written, which might have helped some people.
pbinca has told us repeatedly he is a Republican. Yet above he says he is an Independent
The troll makes these types of mistakes often. He
is not here to reason but to distract, attack and create chaos. Mission accomplished….if you engage him. Ignoring him is the more intelligent approach
Estovir, the syntax of the two is different. If I accept George Svelaz as stupid as he is, then I don’t think he could be consistent with the change from one name to the other.
Svelaz claimed he was a Republican at one time. I don’t remember Pbinca’s claim other than to be independent. She provided statements, though not unusual for most people, that are beyond Svelaz’s maximum abilities.
George-Svelaz wants recognition and doesn’t care much what type of recognition it is. That demonstrates a person with low esteem and, in his case, a meager intellect. He paraphrases what he reads elsewhere without complete comprehension, so he sounds a few IQ points above where he actually stands, which is abysmally low.
He will not cease posting unless insulted by everyone and not treated equally. One correction is sufficient, following a reminder to him of how stupid he sounds.
Do what you want with the information that enters your mind. As the stream of information is flowing in, if you don’t like the taste, shut it off. Drink from some other fountain. I want to hear the unrehearsed ramblings of the candidates. I’ll make the determination of what’s deranged and what’s smart for myself.
you absolutely can tune out anything you don’t want to hear
Where you run into a problem is when you decide that I am not allowed to hear it because you think it’s unreliable.
“Do it for democracy!”.
What a joke…
That wapo reporter is a quack & the left is like the Manson family.
https://shorturl.at/KOvJv
WaPo is nothing more than a cult newsletter for the Left. Not even fit to wrap fish
Notice the MSM has ignored the call from the UK to arrest Americans and imprison them in the UK for the murderous process of thought and expressing it……….
So far
The market appears to be addressing this issue. I canceled my Washington Post subscription in 1982, as I could no longer tolerate the propaganda regarding the Clinton administration. Despite their persistent attempts to get me to resubscribe, I remained firm in my decision. Occasionally, I might glance at a copy in a doctor’s office or barbershop, and within 30 seconds, I’m reminded of the wisdom behind my decision to cancel back in 1982. When sales decline, it’s a signal to either innovate or face closure. The latter seems more probable than the former. Interestingly, Bezos’ other ventures are thriving, except for this one. He might have to consider making changes. The public has become skeptical and is less likely to accept what the mainstream media presents. This skepticism is expected to grow, potentially culminating in a decisive victory for DJT.
I do not understand tax policies but is it possible that since Bezos’ other ventures are doing well he can use the losses at the WAPO as a tax right off?
I suspect that a venture that never generates a profit would be classified as a hobby, and the losses disallowed to write off against profits from other ventures. Of course, Bezos, doing the Democrats’ bidding is possibly treated differently.
I really don’t know where the Wash Post has gone but certainly it has disappeared like the dinosaurs. The trouble is there was no meteor strike near Washington DC, in recent memory, to have signaled its demise. Instead it has seemed to be replaced by Amazon News. If you stare real hard at Amazon News you can almost make out the petrified skeleton of what was once a major American newspaper and the bones of that newspaper has been used to construct a Joke! And a pathetic one at that. Wash Post -> Amazon News -> Joke for those that cannot connect the dots.
Sort of like the recent evening on Stephen Colbert when he innocently stated to a CNN activist (journalist for the uninitiated )that they were not biased in the news business and the audience apparently laughed loudly. So much so that the CNN activist asked if Colbert’s question was a laugh line and Colbert (somewhat confused) said it was not.
The question is, Are the American People waking up to the fact that their news is a joke? We, on this blog know that it is, but has the nation at large made that determination? When Stephen Colbert’s captive audience in the blue halls of CBS laugh when he calls CNN unbiased, we may have reached a tipping point. Time will tell. Or maybe there were was a tour bus from Alabama in the CBS building that evening.
Of course we know how Amazon News works, just like Amazon Space works. When you can’t beat the rapid fire discount launching of SpaceX you file suite demanding ecological impact studies.tsk, tsk. Jeff Bezos, Really?
I told my wife that Bezos, part of the swamp, purchase of WaPo would be trouble for our country has proven true. He ruined what once was a good news organization that engaged in investigative journalism.
WAPO has been a partisan rag for decades, if not longer. They were “reporters” when Nixon was in the WH, they never dug into anything JFK was doing with all of his “issues”.
WAPO will be aggressive again if Trump wins and suddenly “dissent will be patriotic”.
I agree that Bezos is a swamper but WAPO was well into steep decline long before he bought it. It has been a lying liberal rag for decades. For several of those decades, some folks just chose to imagine it was real journalism.
I hope, as one commenter proposed, that Bezos needs the tax write-off, and that he will keep the WAPO garbage scow afloat, for a long time. It’s a testament to what liars establishment DC is. Only an idiot would subscribe. Of course, we have an ample supply of those! The fools who read it and believe it would find some other equally useless ‘news’ source to read if WAPO went belly-up.
“You can’t fix stupid.” – Ron White
Peace!
John Underwood
Tyler, TX
In simplier terms,DCis no longer “We the people” but has become “them the Democrats”
Professor Turley,
Why do you support the right of X to choose the speech on its platform that it wants to amplify ((Trump) while you criticize other platforms for boosting certain user posts over others?
(I support the rights of all platforms to show whatever content they want and let users decide whether they want to use it or not. I just see your positions here as internally inconsistent. Shouldn’t X be neutral by your logic and only allow Trump time if it gives the other candidates the same opportunity?)
Musk has offered Kamala similar time on X. She gas not accepted.
*has (aging eyes!)
*has
There are more than two candidates in the race.
WHY would Kamala Harris accept any offer from Fox or Musk, both of which are election deniers? They keep publishing the lie that the 2020 election was stolen–which is a big, fat lie, and they KNOW it. NEITHER IS LEGITIMATE JOURNALISM. They are both MAGA propaganda media, and she should refuse to lend them any scintilla of credibility.
Anonymous7:22AM-you got it backward. The others you support suppress the voices of everyone not of their ilk so only their ideas are on the air. Kamala was offered the same conversation but to this point has turned it down. I think Elon pointed that out. I believe the offer still stands.
I haven’t seen an RFK offer? What about any other X user? I don’t have that opportunity to spend an hour with Elon… You missed the point. By amplifying one user (Trump) over the other millions of users, it is no longer neutral.
So no media outlet can interview anyone because it doesn’t offer to interview every person olin the country?
By Turley’s logic. I support the free speech rights or social media companies to choose the users they wish to amplify. Turley, at least previously, has not.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/opinion/facebook-orwellian-censorship-campaign-big-tech-jonathan-turley.amp
As an example, see the above link
From the above link …”While these companies enjoy immunity from many lawsuits based on the notion of being neutral communication platforms (akin to telephone companies), they now censor ideas deemed misleading or dangerous on subjects ranging from climate denial to transgender criticism to election fraud.”
Is offering one person (Trump) a platform and not every other user his idea of neutrality? Or is oft-used comparison to the phone company – if ATT interrupted your call to broadcast a Trump interview – would Turley support that?
The Trump interview must be an emergency for the interruption of nurse Ratchet’s psyop agenda.
It comes down to the scene in Cuckoos Nest –
Nurse Ratchet knowing the personal inner frailties of the vulnerable patients inflicts her sadistic cruelty on Billy. Billy commits suicide. Mcmurphy goes for a strangle hold.
We know what happens next.
Two patients through an unknown chaotic string of events are on stage. I give you—> The Cackler and Timpon Walz.
Author, author!
This is not about what you support. We can not make any society work when some of us have the power to impose their will on others by force.
After centuries of experience and different attempts we have found that publishers may choose what they wish to publish – and in return they have legal liability for the content.
While carries may not choose the content they carry and have no liability for that content.
@Anonymous
You seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that the offer has been made to Kamala and she has declined. Don’t believe just us, listen to the interview. It’s like insisting the sun has gone out when all you have to do is lift the blind. It is impossible to take your grievance seriously. 🤷🏽♂️
You missed the point of the post. Turley has previously appealed to net neutrality concerns to argue that X must act like AT&T and not provide amplify any customer or another. This is, of course, not possible if it offers one person – a presidential candidate no less – with more spotlight than you or I.
The concept isn’t that hard. Either Turley thinks that X should behave like AT&T and be neutral or it has free speech rights. His positions are internally inconsistent. So which is it?
Anonymous7:39AM. You still either don’t comprehend or refuse to comprehend that Musk offered the time to DJT and Kamala. I have no idea if he offered the time to RFK or Stein of anyone else. He might have even offered time to RFK’s brain worm for all we know. When the offer is out there and only one responds, that person’s voice is raised simply by showing up. If the others fail to show then that is their responsibility and diminishes their voice by their own choice. I don’t think we can make it more simple than that. I have had many liberal friends over the years and still do and they can comprehend Musk’s offer. Frankly I think you are simply being argumentative or maybe more stupid than I can imagine. Should we call adult protective services to make sure you get your Meals on Wheels today
“I haven’t seen an RFK offer? What about any other X user? I don’t have that opportunity to spend an hour with Elon….”
Pure ignorance from a non-functioning brain. There is no need for such an offer. RFK can appear on X at his desire. You cannot obligate Musk to do the interview, though I am sure he would be happy to do one with RFK, and the country would be ecstatic if Kamala appeared under the same circumstances as Trump.
Patty and GEB are right, one of the usual Anonymous people was way off base.
Anonymous – A platform is either a publisher – like WaPo or NYT and it decides what content it will carry and what content it will feature and then it has liability for that content – it can be sued for defamation as an example.
Or a platfrom is a carrier – and it must be open to all in while case USERS determine what content they prefer.
In that case the platform is not subject to defamation claims as it made no decisions based on content.
Turley thinks it is the latter – see the article I posted this morning above.
If it is a common carrier, then it should be neutral. Hosting an interview with Trump does not provide him the same spotlight as other users of X.
He does? I never interpreted it so. he’s just trying to get people to think. thinking isnt really that hard ya know. But he’s also selling a book. get some rest, lay off the internet for a few days. go outside, ya know, fresh air, sunshine. i’tt clear your brain. good luck.
This is not the first time we’ve been faced with this issue. I am reminded of the case of Thomas Mann, a writer who was forced to flee Germany during the Nazi regime and sought refuge in the U.S. When I was a young child staying in Eastern Pennsylvania, an older relative told me that Mann had been staying near us, just across the state line, in Princeton, NJ. He was the author of a novel called The Magic Mountain which was about a bunch of people in a TB sanitorium. The Mann Family was described at that time as “wrong-thinking” Germans. This is not Ancient History! I am old enough to still remember Thomas Mann.