Topic: Media Research Center
Despite being critical of Elon Musk for not giving right-wing hate the impunity it demands, the Media Research Center was still hyping the release of selectively chosen "Twitter files" through hand-picked reporters (though it still censors from its readers the fact that original hand-picked reporter Matt Taibbi acrimoniously split with Musk, along with other early Musk stenographers). There wa a double drop of "Twitter files" -- meaning one effectively negated the other from a publicity standpoint -- the MRC devoted two separate articles on April 27 to hyping them. Gabriela Pariseau wrote up the first:
When every major sector of elite society promotes censorship using the same words like misinformation and "information pollution," it almost seems like these people are working in tandem. The Twitter Files part 20 indicates that they are doing just that.
Former Executive Director of EngageMedia Andrew Lowenthal wrote this recent batch of The Twitter Files showing just how enmeshed academics, journalists, government workers and tech executives actually were.
“In a functioning democracy there’s dynamic tension between government, civil society organizations, news media, and industry, all advancing their own interests, in theory keeping one another honest. In the #TwitterFiles we find them all working together, cartel-style,” he wrote.
Pariseau didn't explain why misinformation must always be allowed to spread unchecked, or why she smears efforts to do so as "censorship." A half-hour later, Catherine Salgado wrote the second:
The latest Twitter Files reveals how the old, Orwellan regime’s quest to find Russian bots spiraled out of control and ended in the wanton censorship of innocent Americans.
Independent journalist Matt Orfalea released Part 21 of the Twitter Files April 25, “How to Find Russians Anywhere.” A Senate Intelligence Committee request to identify Russian agents on Twitter led to false identifications.
“After Twitter's early attempts to identify Russian accounts resulted in such low numbers, they used different methodologies, tallying ever-increasing numbers of ‘Russians,’” Orfalea explained.
This appears to be a rehash of previously discredited attacks on Hamilton 68 for truying to alert Twittter about Russian bots. And, of course, if Orfalea is serving as Musk's stenographer like the other writers, he's not an "independent journalist."
The MRC doesn't care about facts, of course -- they care about clicks and narratives. So the MRC's Curtis Houck and Stephanie Hamill ran to Fox News on April 28 to push the "censorship" narrative, with Hamill stating that ""the Twitter Files really exposed a lot of what many of us already knew was going on, but now it's official. Now there was actual evidence to show that maybe the possibility of the government persuading, having Big Tech censoring conservatives and dissenting voices." And Houck effectively demanded that lies and misinformation be allowed to spread: "Houck said you had to appreciate ABC's transparency in announcing what they had decided was too dangerously wrong to include [in its reporting on COVID], but that doesn't mean 'the speech should be silenced.'" Actually, it's the responsibility of a news organization to report facts and not amplify falsehoods and misinformation.
A May 2 post by Autumn Johnson lashed out at Twitter founder Jack Dorsey for starting a new Twitter rival and regurgitated old attacks on him about purported "censorship":
Anti-free speech Jack Dorsey created a new social media app that looks a lot like Twitter.
CNN Business reported Friday that Dorsey’s app, named “Bluesky,” is gaining attention from prominent leftists, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and anti-Trump social media influencer Chrissy Teigen. But as Twitter is allowing more free speech on the platform Dorsey could be taking his anti-free speech ideas to his new platform.
The Twitter Files revealed late last year that Dorsey reportedly played a key role on Twitter’s censorship team and was aware of the concerted effort to ban former President Donald Trump, despite the fact that Trump did not violate the platform’s rules. Interestingly enough, Dorsey admitted his mistake in a blog post last year. “The Twitter when I led it and the Twitter of today do not meet any of these [listed] principles,” Dorsey wrote.
Johnson also claimed that "MRC’s exclusive CensorTrack.org database has years of records of Twitter’s one-sided censorship" -- but CensorTrack is a partisan tool that complies examples of purported "censorship" only against conservatives, so citing it to claim "censorship" is "one-sided" is false.
Pariseau hyped someone else's Musk-fluffing in a May 10 post:
Entrepreneur and tech investor David Sacks got candid in an interview with podcaster Benny Johnson about the government's attempt to silence speech.
Sacks applauded The Twitter Files for unveiling how federal agencies weaponized their authority against Americans in an interview on Benny Johnson’s The Benny Show Sunday. He credited Twitter owner Elon Musk for releasing the files. “I think we would have very little knowledge of what was actually happening inside these social media companies if Elon hadn’t opened up The Twitter Files,” Sacks said. “The only conclusion you can come away with is you know we have these security agencies that have been weaponized against the American people. They’re propagandizing the American people. They’re surveilling the American people. They’re censoring the American people. They’re completely out of hand and unacceptable.”
Pariseau didn't disclose that Sacks is a buddy of Musk's, or that Johnson has a history of plagiarism and promoting conspiracy theories.
Meanwhile, amid reports that Musk's Twitter approved more censorship requests from other countries than pre-Musk Twitter did, the MRC had to run to his defense again. Salgado derw the short straw and endorsed Musk's capitulation in a May 17 post:
The newest Twitter Files defended Twitter CEO Elon Musk after Twitter complied with Turkish government censorship requests.
Musk went along with Turkey’s censorship demands leading up Michael Shellenberger highlighted three key points from the new Twitter Files, providing context on the apparent anti-free speech collusion. First, he wrote, “Twitter sought compliance with Turkey’s censorship demands long before @ElonMusk bought the company.” Shellenberger also wrote that Twitter is more transparent than Google or Meta, and that even some of Musk’s harshest critics have defended him in this instance.
Platformer writer and Musk “hater” Casey Newton and senior reporter at The Verge Zoe Schiffer actually defended arguing that non-compliance could result in an outright ban, Shellenberger reported in The Twitter Files. “It’s typically better for the cause of speech to have at least some content available,” Newton and Schiffer wrote in an article for The Verge.
Salgado then quoted an MRC official making the bizarro-world claim that censorship is freedom when Musk does it:
“It’s good to see that Musk is attempting to push back against foreign government censorship operations and providing a platform for people to speak all across the world,” said MRC Free Speech America & MRC Business Director Michael Morris. “But more can still be done. American companies like Twitter should be exporting the American ideals of free speech and expression, not importing the globalist notion of top-down, totalitarian suppression, control and censorship.”
Salgado did concede, however, that "The Twitter Files, however, did not address whether Musk permits censorship of content at the request of other governments," though she refused to present evidence available elsewhere that he, in fact, does.
Pariseau touted yet another selective "Twitter files" release in a May 18 post: "This week’s Twitter Files reveal that The Washington Post columnist Taylor 'The Troll' Lorenz and NBC’s Ben Collins had privileged access to Twitter and its censorship apparatus under the prior regime." (Yes, the MRC is still angry at Lorenz for using factual public records to reveal the person behind the homophobic Libs of TikTok account, Chaya Raichik.) She credited "independent journalist Paul Thacker" even though, by definition, a truly independent journalist would not be slavishly following Musk's orders to do stenography for him.
