Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center doesn't care about bad things happening on Elon Musk's Twitter unless it directly affects them and their fellow right-wingers. Thus, you will never hear the MRC complain about, say, the plethora of animal torture videos on Twitter. Instead, it hyped Twitter accusing Microsoft of misusing data, and it published a column by Ben Shapiro headlined "Will Elon Musk Break the Legacy Media Stranglehold?" Gabriela Pariseau touted a new "Twitter files" release in a May 24 post:
Many shocking reports of Australia's draconian COVID-19 lockdown measures have come out over the last couple of years but the latest “Twitter Files Extra” show how far those measures went online.
The new supplemental Twitter files centered around the “The Covid Censorship Requests of Australia's Department of Home Affairs (DHA)” and reportedly helped confirm a report by The Australian. Andrew Lowenthal, author of the Network Affects Substack, tweeted that The Twitter Files team “found 18 DHA emails, collectively requesting 222 tweets be removed.”
He added that “Jokes & true information were included in censorship requests, which came from the “Social Cohesion Division” of the DHA’s ‘Extremism Insights and Communication’ office.”
Pariseau failed to mention reports that Musk's Twitter has approved more censorship requests from other countries than pre-Musk Twitter did; still, she unironically whined that "it’s telling that Twitter bowed to a foreign government repeatedly pushing the platform to behave like a state actor."
Because no criticism of Musk is allowed unless it comes from the MRC itself for not letting hate and misinformation go completely unchecked, Joseph Vazquez was in full Musk defense mode in a May 25 post:
Apparently attempting to promote free speech on a Big Tech platform is now “right wing.” At least, that’s what The Atlantic is suggesting in its latest conniption over Twitter 2.0 under owner Elon Musk.
Atlantic Staff Writer Charlie Warzel bemoaned in his whiny May 23 piece how “Twitter has evolved into a platform that is indistinguishable from the wastelands of alternative social-media sites such as Truth Social and Parler. It is now a right-wing social network.” Warzel — apparently disturbed that Twitter 2.0 isn’t the Orwellian censorship cesspool it once was — laced his headline with nutty agitprop: “Twitter Is a Far-Right Social Network.” In Warzel’s view, “It can no longer be denied.” Apparently more people being allowed to speak freely is the bogeyman The Atlantic sees in its nightmares. The Atlantic’s tweet of Warzel’s story tried to smear Musk’s Twitter as a “right-wing, alt-tech” platform.
Warzel doubled down on his December 2022 assertion that Musk was some kind of a “far right activist” simply because he decried the “woke mind virus” and allowed conservatives more ground to express opinions on hot button issues:
"Woke mind virus" isn't actually a thing, but Vazquez won't tell you that. Instead, he quoted a feillow MRC employee spouting pro-Musk talking points:
“Liberals used to claim to stand staunchly in favor of promoting free speech,” said MRC Free Speech America & MRC Business Director Michael Morris. “But apparently that speech only extends to the ignorant spewing of expletives and denigrating the American flag and Constitution, not to conservatives in the new digital town square of the internet. Shame on The Atlantic for not rallying behind free speech online.”
Musk still has a bad habit of suspending the accounts of anyone who criticizes him or his other companies, so it's laughable for Morris to hold him up as a paragon of "free speech."
Autumn Johnson contibuted a slice of fawning Musk PR in a May 26 post, gushing over how "Elon Musk is once again warning about the dangers that unchecked artificial intelligence poses to humanity."
Clay Waters offered his own defense of Musk in a May 30 post:
PBS is an echo chamber for arrogant liberals who think they should manage everyone's information. PBS NewsHour hosted a conversation on Elon Musk's recent Twitter moves Thursday evening. The guest was liberal Washington Post columnist Philip Bump, who is no friend of Musk and his moves to, as Bump himself said, “equal [the] playing field” on Twitter by ridding it of the management of verification badges (i.e. “blue checks”) beloved by liberals.
In Bump's view, the move gave so-called “objective” journalists relatively less influence compared to “partisan” conservatives spreading “unvetted” and false information. As if liberal journalists didn't further demonstrate their bias and partisanship on Twitter, a cause for ineffectual hand-wringing among their editors for years.
[...]
No matter the reams of evidence from the "Twitter Files" and other sources, demonstrating left-wing cancel mobs pressuring Twitter to ban conservatives, and Twitter squelching the accounts of prominent scientists who strayed from the authoritarian party line on fighting the Covid pandemic, Bump sided with the censors.
The only "prominent scientist" Waters is actually referring to here is Jay Bhattacharya, who proved he was wrong about the COVID pandemic by signing the Great Barrington Declaration, which irresponsibly pushed "herd immunity" at a timewhen thousands of peopole were dying of COVID daily and no vaccine yet existed.
Waters went on to complain: "After Bennett noted Bump’s argument that Musk was out to 'dismantle' certain communities on Twitter, Bump argued that he’d taken over Twitter to mute his bad press. (So Musk spent $44 billion just to avoid bad press?)" Given Musk's penchant for suspending the Twitter accounts of his critics, that's not an unreasonable take.
