by Phil Erwin
So. Twitter has reportedly “released” the New York Post’s account from the dark oblivion it suffered for two weeks, after its account was locked because they posted links to their then-current articles about Hunter Biden’s possibly corrupt activities. Twitter told the Post they could have their account unlocked just as soon as they deleted all the “offending” material. Which, of course, the Post refused to do.
It was never clear just who was “offended,” whom the Twitter mob thought they were protecting, and from what. (From the Truth?)
But it was crystal-clear that Twitter was deliberately censoring a major news organization.
The Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, was called before Congress (along with fellow censor-activists Google and Facebook) to explain why he thinks he has the right to decide whether a news story published by a reputable newspaper should, or should not, be available to you – to read, to ignore, to absorb, to agree with, or to disagree with – in the lead-up to a Presidential election.
Senator Ted Cruz framed the obvious question this way (paraphrasing): “Who the Hell elected you, Mr Dorsey, to make that decision for us?”
Here’s the rub: The Post’s fact-based articles detailed serious evidence that strongly suggested members of Democrat Presidential nominee Joe Biden’s family may have engaged in financial arrangements that were, at best, unseemly and unwise; and may have been, at worst: Illegal.
And there are indications that Joe Biden himself may have been, if not actually involved, at least aware of what was going on – despite his numerous, emphatic assertions while campaigning that he “…never, ever” spoke with his son Hunter, or other members of his family, about their business dealings overseas.
Doesn’t that seem like a pretty important story for the voters of America to have at hand – and in mind – while they are deciding who really deserves their vote? The Post obviously thought so, and posted the story to their Twitter account in order to maximize the audience reached.
No doubt that was precisely why Dorsey and company moved to hide the story from you. Because he, and they, did not want you thinking about possible Biden family corruption while you were standing (however metaphorically) in the voting booth. So they locked the Post’s account. Twitter, together with Facebook, Google and every single “mainstream” Media organization – CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, even NPR – clearly felt the risk of your not voting for Biden was simply too great to allow you access to that story. So they squelched it. They ignored it. They buried it – made it almost impossible for you to find it. And they made excuses for this fundamentally anti-American behavior – denying you the freedom to access the “Free” Press – in order to justify doing what they knew very well was entirely wrong, unfair, uncivil and un-American.
These people provided Joe Biden an enormous boost to his campaign, by hiding what would clearly be a hugely damaging story to Biden – at the most critical point in the campaign – because they want Joe Biden to win and Donald Trump to lose.
That is what is called, in legal terms, an in-kind contribution to Joe Biden. It is Twitter choosing to use its own facilities to accomplish a particular form of advertising – preventing a negative story from gaining traction – a service which was at once both favorable to Joe Biden and unfavorable to Donald Trump. And it was arguably even more effective than standard TV ads, because it prevented Donald Trump from accessing verified news information and incorporating it in his own ads.
Truth be known, it is very likely that we would never have heard anything more about this story if Hunter Biden’s one-time business associate had not come forward, entirely on his own volition, to testify in a public press setting as to important facts and events, and publicly surrender to the FBI some very damning physical evidence (a laptop, cell phones and documents) regarding the legal concerns he had vis-a-vis the Biden family. (I wrote about Tony Bobulinski’s revelations here.)
Every single Media outlet guilty of the act of burying this story should be fined hugely, maybe have their FCC licenses suspended, and be forced to admit their infraction to the American people – admit they attempted to unfairly (if not illegally) use their platforms to influence the outcome of our election.
And they all say “We don’t do that!” Right.
I don’t do Twitter. I only see Tweets that have reached the news-waves for some reason or another. To me, Twitter seems to be just a gossip-board. A place where anyone can say anything about anyone else, and whoever “hears” the Tweet can nod in agreement, or shake their head in disagreement, or ignore it, or repeat (“re-Tweet”) it to their neighbor.
I assume the names chosen for this type of on-line communication were a nod to the way birds carry on their noisy conversations in the treetops. “Tweeting” seems an apropos name for this very gossipey activity. We call it “twittering” when it’s sing-song and pleasant.
All it really takes to Tweet is a voice.
Any birdbrain can do it.
But the work it takes to provide the public with real news – the focus, the research, the editorial back-and-forth, all of it predicated on a wide and deep understanding of the political and social contexts – is work that is worthy of the Constitutional guarantees: Freedom of Speech, and of the Press.
For a gossip-board billionaire to think he and his minions should be able to silence all the hard work of the New York Post’s reporters by shutting off access to what is touted as a “free public forum” for discussion – that is an affront to the American people, and a form of political and viewpoint censorship that belongs in Communist China.
Not within America’s borders.
Jack Dorsey: Apologize. You Twit.
And fire the birdbrains that thought this was an OK thing to do to fellow Americans!
Phil Erwin is an author, IT administrator and registered Independent living in Newbury Park. He would like to support some Democrat ideals, but he has a visceral hatred for Lies and Damn Lies (and is highly suspicious of Statistics.) That pretty much eliminates supporting most Democrats, and a bunch of Republicans to boot.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Citizens Journal.