“Conservative Grift”. What do you all think that means? I’m not a conservative so I take no offense, but I do get the impression that the author of this article isn’t the only one who doesn’t understand conservatives.
The author laments, “Breitbart and Newsmax shouldn’t feature in any “news” section: They’re not trustworthy or legitimate news sources. They are full of shite. A conservative or even a centrist might say, well, that’s what they’d say about Splinter or Gizmodo, so you have to take them seriously, or you don’t count either. They would say that! But they’d be wrong; just because enough people say it loudly enough doesn’t make it true.” I do agree that Breitbart is sketchy, but so is Gizmodo. You may notice that they are one of the sites I post about here where I point out their bias and misleading wording.
They claim, “Most medium-to-large partisan liberal news organizations have higher editorial standards than nearly all of the conservative outlets that consider themselves the mainstream outlets’ counterparts.” I do not believe that is true. Or, should I say, they think it is true, but their standard is a circular one so they are not able to remark on their own bias. It’s not bias, after all, if that’s how things are SUPPOSED to be!
They go on to claim that the reason there is no popular left-wing version of Breitbart is because the left is just too honest to create such a publication. HuffPo and Slate notwithstanding I suppose.
And what has this to do with Facebook?
The author is afraid that Facebook is going to cave to conservative demands to be allowed on Facebook without being censored.
“The further Facebook descends down the path of letting that screaming white face of faux outrage dictate how they run their platform, the harder it’s going to be for them to get away from them.”
And this is because Facebook is falling prey to the guile and grift of the right wingers who have, “…done a remarkable job over the last half century to bellow and bully its way into having its most ridiculous and reality-divorced concerns taken seriously. It lies about and distorts everything: about tax cuts, about Benghazi and her emails, about immigration, about healthcare, about Diamond and Silk.”
The article really is one of the least self-aware pieces I’ve ever read.
To say the right does these things may (sometimes) be true but it’s lunacy to say that the left doesn’t or that left-wing publications have some high standard that prevents them from bias or falsity. I agree that sites like InfoWars and Breitbart aren’t the most reliable sources. But I also, frankly, don’t think there are many reliable sources. That’s why I visit multiple sites. When an article is talking about something and they give a link to the original I click through and read. I often find that like the old telephone game the story gets farther from the truth the more links from the original we are.
In the end, the thing I find most stunning about this editorial is that I think the author actually believes what she is saying.
Some recent updates on Facebook, the for-profit panopticon and advertising company: First, BuzzFeed reported last night that Facebook has begun ranking news organizations by trustworthiness and “promotes or suppresses” content based on those rankings. Second, Axios reported this morning that Facebook will bring in outside advisers to audit the company both for civil rights violations and for, uh, anti-conservative bias. Specifically, Facebook will employ former GOP Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona and convene meetings with the Heritage Foundation, a powerful, conservative think tank in Washington. These two stories demonstrate perfectly how ill-equipped Facebook is to deal with modern conservatism.