Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center would rather whine that a comedian made fun of Elon Musk than engage in any serious discussion about how he's mismanaging Twitter (well, X). Thus, you'll hear no mention at the MRC over these recent controversies:
- His attempt to counter criticism of his anti-Semitic turn (which the MRC couldn't be bothered to criticize despite its normally strong stance against anti-Semitism) by meeting with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
- He tweeted a meme supporting the false Pizzagate conspiracy theory, though he was sufficiently shamed online that he eventually deleted it.
- When Musk claim of a journalist being allegedly tortured in a Ukrainian prison was debunked -- becaue the guy is actually an online dating coach who was arrested in Ukraine for spreading Russian propaganda -- Musk raged about the Community Notes system that he introducted on his own website when it pointed out his falsehoods. He has a history of deleting Community Notes that correct his false or misleading tweets.
- Musk not only restored the account of discredited conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, he appeared in an audio chat with Jones (along with Vivek Ramaswamy).
Despite all of that, the MRC still insists on working as Musk's PR shop. Thus, we have things like a Dec. 13 post by Catherine Salgado hyping another Musk-fluffer:
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) denounced multiple brands that pulled their advertising from X, but have refused to address the national security risks of Chinese-owned TikTok.
Rubio issued a press release announcing he sent letters to 18 companies that were too squeamish to advertise on Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter), but remain active on TikTok, which has Chinese Communist government ties. “I am appalled by the double standard of boycotting an American social-media application while maintaining a presence on a social-media application controlled by America’s greatest adversary,” Rubio wrote in the letter. He pointed out the biased censorship and prolific pro-terrorist content on TikTok, along with its ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government through its parent company, ByteDance. As the senator noted, China’s national security laws require all companies to share data with the government.
Salgado made sure not to bring up the fact that anti-Semitic content on Twitter and from its owner -- and that ads are being placed next to such content -- are the main reasons companies are fleeing from the platform.
It was Tom Olohan's turn to engage in Musk toadyism in a Dec. 21 post:
Independent journalist Tucker Carlson made clear that any chance of a free and fair election in 2024 rests on keeping Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) platform free of censorship.
When entrepreneur and tech investor David Sacks suggested to Carlson that the media would put Biden “over the top” in the 2024 election, Carlson pointed out that there is one large gap in the leftist monopoly on media and social media. On the Dec. 1 edition of All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg, Carlson responded, “Assuming that we have the same media that we had in 2020, that’s true. But that’s why you just gotta pray every night for Elon’s health.” He added, “I mean it, too. I mean it. [X is] the only platform at scale in the world that’s pretty — there’s censorship on it — but there’s not mass censorship actually, there isn’t and that’s the only platform of its kind, at scale, that’s the only one.”
Throughout the episode, Carlson continued to defend Musk, including by mocking CNBC anchor Andrew Ross Sorkin as a “fussy little douche” for his behavior during a since-viral interview with Musk. During this interview, Sorkin pressed Musk on his response to an anti-free speech advertiser boycott, but struggled to respond after Musk told anyone pressuring him to “go f*** yourself.”
First, the idea that a right-wing conspiracy-mongerer like Carlson should be considered an "independent journalist" -- as Olohan apparently wants us to believe -- is laughable. Second, Olohan failed to disclose that Sacks is a longtime Musk booster and part of his team of "yes men" to help Musk run Twitter following his takeover, so he's not exactly offering unbiased analysis. Third, Olohan, like Salgado, failed to mention that anti-Semitic conduct on Twitter and by Musk is what's causing advertisers to flee, not an "anti-free speech advertiser boycott"; of course, then he would have to explain how anti-Semitism must be consindered "free speech."
Rather than engage in honest reporting, Olohan chose to fluff Carlson some more:
Earlier in the podcast, Carlson cited Musk’s professed commitment to protect free speech on X as a potential reason behind the desire to bring more censorship to the Musk-owned platform. Tucker also pointed out that there are relatively few large media outlets, such as the three big broadcast channels and three large cable networks, presumably CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. He added that social media is dominated by a few giants “and they were all locked down.”
Carlson went on to mention that even his own former employer tried to control what information Americans could access, adding, “I’m not going to beat up on Fox News but there was kind of a fairly narrow band of acceptable views allowed on that channel. Is that control? Yes, it is. And so there really was no remaining place with scale where someone with a dissenting view could give it voice and that’s just crazy.”
This, Carlson explained, made him greatly appreciate Musk’s social media platform.
Olohan didn't mention that Fox News got busted for lying to its viewers about election fraud, which tells us that the range of "acceptable views" on the channel is not as narrow as Carlson and Olohan want you to believe.
Jorge Bonilla similarly trieds to suggest that hate is "free speech" in a Dec. 31 post:
During a year-end wrapup segment on Face The Nation, CBS Senior Business and Technology Correspondent Jo-Ling Kent lamented that “the arguments and protections of free speech” prevent social media companies from engaging in further censorship and viewpoint suppression. Additionally, Kent took a shot at Elon Musk for his free speech reforms at X, formerly known as Twitter.
Watch as Kent also bemoans Musk’s gutting of the fed-embedded Twitter Trust and Safety Team, as aired on CBS Face The Nation on Sunday, December 31st, 2023:
[...]
The giveaway here is the intentional singling out of Elon Musk’s reforms at X. Kent cites the recently reinstated Alex Jones as a “conspiracy theorist” platformed by Musk- but conveniently leaves out those who were suspended but proven right over time, such as vaccine skeptics Robert Malone and Alex Berenson, and the continued platforming of Libs of Tik Tok despite the left’s repeated cancellation efforts.
Both Malone and Berenson are proven liars and misinformers who have not, in fact, been "proven right over time." And privately run social media platforms have every right to remove the accounts of those who promote hate, lies and misinformation.
