[Retain Mike]

Mark Twain said , If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.

So, you must read the paper to find out whether something has occurred, but then you could depend on the editor to write an interpretation that conformed to his agenda. There was not any pretense of objectivity. If someone came to him with a different interpretation, then they were asked to leave. If they wanted to print a handbill, then access to his printing press was denied.

Such has been the situation in this country since the first printing press was set up. Freedom of the Press meant that, if they could find a printing press, they could print whatever they wanted regardless of how absurd or inflammatory it might have been. However, that person may have to defend what was said or written against a charge of libel, but with truth as a defense.

I think this long article does a good job of describing 21st century ways in which the same objectives are achieved, while claiming objectivity. A writer named Michael Snellenberger calls this the “censorship-industrial complex”.

[takebackaustin]

typo, Schellenberger

[takebackaustin]

Oops Shellenberger !

[Flash Bazbeaux]

Shellenberger

[Tell It Right]

I’m so old I remember when the Dims celebrated the “Arab spring” and glorified the free speech of the internet allowing for voices of descent.

[aspasia]

Former Secretary of State John Kerry articulated this in September during a World Economic Forum panel. “I think the dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing and growing. … The referees we used to have to determine what is a fact and what isn’t a fact have kind of been eviscerated, to a certain degree,” he said. “Our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just hammer [misinformation] out of existence.”

Oh yeah, if only the Bolsheviks had AI!