You didn't quote me, but this seems to be an attempt to reply to my post (#14). And the answer to your question, as posed here, is so clear that it practically only seems asked rhetorically. But, of course, no I don't approve of the sort of political censorship you describe, above. It is in tying this to your OP, though, where the difficulties begin to emerge. First off, I don't think Jeff Bezos has any direct input into the editorial decisions of the Washington Post. It's not a situation like w/ Rupert Murdoch & News Corp. (which included FOX NEWS). WAPO was well-established, & not Bezos' business. He just didn't want to see it go under, as it is a first-rate publication. That said, the editors & everyone still with a job there no doubt knows what his business is, & would naturally be disinclined, I would guess, to give him grief over it. But, if your complaint is against Amazon's being allowed to stay open, that was a decision made on a state level, in every state in which they have an operation. So, other than a Washington, D.C. branch, if there is one, there's no reason to believe that there being no editorials for closing Amazon, in the Washington Post, should have had any effect whatsoever on distribution centers being allowed to remain open in Michigan, or wherever. Likewise, your OP focus on the NYT seems questionable. For starters, I do not believe your assertion, that no opinions against illegal immigration are permitted in that paper, is true. If your argument were something that seemed worth the trouble, it would be a simple matter to go to their website & type in, "illegal immigration." And I'm sure, given enough reading, one would find at least a letter to the editor with that perspective. Not being a regular reader of the Times, I don't know this is the case, but it would not surprise me to hear that the overwhelming majority of their immigration pieces are, "pro." I would just take that to be the editorial bent of the paper, i.e., of its editorial senior staff. Every news outlet has a, "perspective;" that's one of the main reasons there are so many different outlets, from which to choose. What makes it especially unsurprising, if the NYT is very pro-immigrant, is the fact that so many immigrants live in New York City! Your stipulated fact that there is a Mexican billionaire who is a major stockholder, in & of itself, is no reason to believe your allegation that he plays any part in the paper's editorial process. And you offer no proof of what would be an earth-shattering scoop, in the news world. If you actually have any evidence of this, I suggest you write an article; the Washington Post, I'm sure, would be happy to buy it. And for those who don't care for the editorial bent of the NYTimes, they've got 2 other papers in town: the Post-- which is a News Corp. Publication (along w/ NY's Wall Street Journal)-- and the Daily News. I don't quite follow how the Rolling Stones', "Street Fighting Man," plays into this argument, but if you hum a few bars...
The question that arises here is what is meant by censorship! There is the ... in my eyes idiotic and self-destructive ... American version of what censorship is, because Freedom of Speech covers almost everything. And then there is the other, which for example prohibits the abuse of things like freedom of speech. When a person or group calls for the abolition of freedom of expression ... is that call protected by "Freedom of Speech"? I clearly say no!
Saying there is no reason to think Jeff Bezos plays any role in the Washington Post is the same as there is no reason to think Mark Zuckerman plays any role in Facebook, Rupert plays any role in FOX and the owner of the local cafe plays any role in the cafe.
That's not the way NEWSPAPERS/ORGANIZATIONS are typically, or supposed to be, run. Murdoch was forced to distance himself from FOX management.
Interesting theory some people have that owners, managers and employees of companies are never interested in profits and never take into consideration the profits and other interests of the company in decisions because they're not supposed to. Nor do they're personal opinions about anything matter either. If there is one thing we know, Jeff Bezos has absolutely no interest whatsoever in making money whatsoever in his businesses operations and has no involvement in them whatsoever. No editor at the Washington Post would hesitate to write editorials supporting Elizabeth Warren's claim that Amazon should be broken up as an unconscionable illegal monopoly nor hesitate nor question whether the richest person on earth and his company pay enough taxes. The one thing we know about Ford is that the stockholders, owners and employees of Ford have absolutely no interest in the reputation of or sales of Ford. If Volvo makes a better car and Dodge makes a better truck, that is what Ford will promote in their advertisements and sell on Ford car lots because Ford only cares about the truth about cars and trucks even if economically harmful to Ford - like Jeff Bezos only cares about the truth even if economically harmful to him and Amazon because no one cares less about money and reputation than Jeff Bezos. The one thing everyone knows about the richest corporations and people in the history of earth is that none of them ever consider anything about money and their economic interests when they make their decisions and public statements. No one cares less about money and power than the richest and most powerful companies and men on earth.
Interesting but not surprising that half the respondents favor censorship. Liberty dies to thunderous applause, and yes Virginia, we have the government we deserve.
First, news media and social media are different topics, related but certainly distinct. As far as mainstream news media goes, you should be aware than none of this is in any way new. Newspapers, and later TV stations, have always been owned or controlled by a small number of powerful individuals and some of them have long applied their personal biases and preferences to their publications, sometimes much, much more aggressively than anyone in the mainstream today. And at least today there are lots of alternative sources that are more independent (though not necessarily less biased) and more scope for challenges, checks and balances (even if a lot of people are bad at making use of them). I also suspect you're overestimating how much this is about pushing (or hiding) certain things and underestimating how much it is about publishing whatever the owners think will make them the most money. After all, the combined ownership of large corporations you refer to means a lot of them actually own organisations that are (nominally) massively politically diverse. The owners don't mind because each will have it's own distinct market. The outcomes may be similar regardless but understanding the true underlying causes is vital if you're going to (try to) do anything to address a problem. "Support" would be the wrong word but I don't see what the alternative would be. Either the people who own the publications can decide what they publish (or don't) or someone else decides instead and I can't see how the latter could possibly work in practice. Ultimately someone's biases are going to be represented (even if only subconsciously). I'd very much prefer is all of the news media was much more clear, accurate and honest but unfortunately I don't see how we could make that happen.
Whoever do you suppose is advocating for that? Fox, et al, are publishers, and have the legal liability for that. We understand what corporate speech looks like at CNN, MSNBC et al. Why it isn't considered campaign contributions, well, that's a different story. As far as I know, however, FB, Twitter, Google et al are protected in a different way. Shielded from liability and all for the content they host. And like the public square, no voice is supposed to be silenced there.
The reason they were given protection from liability was their claiming they do not edit or review content. That, of course, is a massive lie as they openly edit, review and censor content.
It is interesting that the Twitter, FB Googlie, et al haven't seen fit to remove the calls for violence from the left against conservatives. One has to believe then, they are taking a side.
Your first premise is demonstrably false. Mr Bezos, in fact, does use his mouthpiece the WAPO, all the time to express his editorial opinions and views. You started from a place of dishonesty. The rest is cast with the same.
The enemy is not the Democrats or the Republicans. Not really ANTIFA - just criminal punks and malcontents - and not BLM. It is the international plutocrats and kleptocrats - that just fully took over the government. They are in control of all information now and all of the federal government. That's just reality. Resistance is futile. Submit. Obey.
We've already seen it. The "shut up racist"... "Shut up bigot"... "Shut up deplorable".. This is what they do.
I've written volumes about the topic of censorship over the years, and I won't go into ALL of that again except to state my main viewpoint: I loathe and detest censorship almost more than anything else! No one should ever have his Freedom of Speech harmed, abused, or squelched by anyone else, except for those rare instances where his 'speech' falls into the well-known category of falsely yelling "Fire" in a crowded building.... But the proof of this sincerity has to be in total RECIPROCITY! As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wishes to can write posts here, for instance, calling me the worst, most despicable, rotten, miserable person who ever lived -- and I'll completely and unreservedly support his or her right to do exactly that! But how many others would respect my right to respond in the same way...? That's when you see who's a "snowflake" and who's not....
Are you suggesting that the government should decide how Twitter and Facebook make decisions on their platforms? That the government should make decisions on who should and should not be their customers? They shouldn't be allowed to make decisions on banning people? That doesn't sound like small government to me. Does it to you?
The unintended consequences would not be pretty. Every baker would have to bake all the cakes. Every newsletter would have to print all the ads. Every t-shirt owner would have to make all the shirts.
