CNN FURIOUS Over Trump's Defense Of Paul Joseph Watson, Pushes Censorship
CNN FURIOUS Over Trump's Defense Of Paul Joseph Watson. Following Trump's defense of Paul Joseph Watson after facebook banned him, CNN reporter Oliver Darcy tweeted in outrage over the actions of the president. In a story he wrote on CNN he published overt and obvious fake news lies from Facebook about how they take action.Later in the story Darcy even parrots activist rhetoric about social media censorship, "private platforms," and free speech. While the first amendment doesn't protect people from private censorship, freedom of speech is a universal principal not a law regardless of the 1st amendmentThe article from CNN was an activist opinion piece masquerading as fact and along with rhetoric and actions from CNN reporters it seems like CNN is actively trying to get conservatives and anti establishment media banned from various platforms.This isn't the first time CNN played a role in getting someone banned and it likely won't be the left as CNN chases after far left activists rhetoric and agenda.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This morning, Donald Trump tweeted out support for those recently banned from Facebook, even retweeting Paul Joseph Watson more than once.
Naturally, many people on the left are upset by this.
But to be fair, they'd probably be upset at whatever the president tweeted.
Facebook says they're banning the far right.
It was not that long ago they said they were banning white nationalists.
So they have moved the line and are getting closer and closer to banning regular conservatives.
The reason this move is significant is that for years the media has laid the groundwork that Republicans today are extremists and far-right with story after story saying the same thing, even pointing out positions that Democrats held only a few years ago are far-right.
How long until they start banning regular old Trump supporters?
There's no better example of this than CNN, who played an active role in banning more than one media company through their actions.
They're now publishing false statements and pushing activist rhetoric, which to me, it seems like they're trying to get Trump or others banned.
Today, let's take a look at what's going on with the latest censorship fight, and what CNN is doing, and why they're doing it.
Now before we get started, I'd like to give a quick shoutout to today's sponsor, all of you.
If you go to timcast.com slash donate, you can sponsor my work through monthly donations, cryptocurrency, or even by donating physical stuff to my address.
Now the easiest way to support this video is just to share it on social media to help spread the news.
We saw the story yesterday.
Trump bashes Facebook and Twitter for censorship of conservatives.
The story says that President Trump took aim at social media giants Facebook and Twitter in a series of tweets Friday evening claiming The platform has unfairly censored conservative voices.
But Donald Trump kicked it up a notch by retweeting Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, and others on the issue of censorship, even retweeting Paul more than once.
And of course, left-wing media pounced, publishing stories about how Trump was retweeting But of course, CNN had this story, where they said, Trump tweets support for far-right figures banned by Facebook.
They say the president shared more than a dozen tweets about the subject on Friday night and Saturday morning, and he conveniently avoided the fact that some of the banned users are extremists who make a living by deceiving their fans.
Interestingly, this story isn't listed as an opinion piece.
But this here is an absolute opinion.
There's no way around it.
He conveniently avoided the fact.
You don't know why he didn't bring it up.
Implying it was convenient is your opinion.
And whether or not these people are extremists is also your opinion.
But again, is anyone surprised that CNN is masquerading opinion as fact?
They say, his posts were a rallying cry, full of resentment toward big tech.
He said, it's getting worse and worse for conservatives on social media.
But Facebook executives say this has nothing to do with ideology or political party.
It's about safety.
Their story includes this quote from Facebook, which is, of course, a falsehood.
It says, However, these accounts have been on Facebook for a very, very long time.
organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology.
However, these accounts have been on Facebook for a very, very long time, and none of them
broke any rules recently.
If Facebook always banned individuals in this capacity, they would have banned these people
Clearly, this is not true.
And we can look to Oliver Darcy himself as proof.
Nick Monroe highlighted this tweet from Oliver Darcy.
It's important to note that tech platforms did not enforce their own rules and take action against Alex Jones' InfoWars on their own accord.
It took media outlets to point out for weeks that InfoWars was skirting the rules on these tech platforms For them to enforce own standards.
So I'm going to ask this question right now to you, CNN.
Why would you uncritically publish the statement that in the past you refuted by saying they only take action because you pressured them to?
Clearly, Facebook is not being honest here.
Why wouldn't CNN include that it's not true, but at the same time put their opinion about what Trump is or isn't avoiding?
Clearly, this is an activist screed angry that Donald Trump is fighting back against censorship.
Beyond that, CNN includes an activist talking point.
Users do not have government-protected freedom of speech on privately owned platforms like Facebook.
Which, again, has nothing to do with the story and has more to do with them pushing activist rhetoric about what's really going on.
CNN publishing an opinion piece masquerading as fact.
But when you look at Oliver Darcy's actual Twitter account, you realize, no, he really does have an agenda here.
Trump's AM Twitter activity is being played up by Infowars.
As you'd expect, reprehensible that the president is legitimizing this organization while also working to delegitimize credible sources for news.
He adds, this isn't Trump boosting conservative media, this is Trump boosting a fringe organization notorious for trafficking in and profiting off of some of the worst conspiracy theories.
What Oliver is doing here is shifting the targets.
What Donald Trump is talking about is censorship.
What most of us talk about is the right to express yourself.
It is no defense of the things any of these people say.
It is no defense for the fact that InfoWars is a fringe website or that Alex Jones talks about aliens.
The point is, social media sites, in a coordinated, concerted effort, banned a group of personalities and gave the press a heads-up under embargo.
That is targeting just one group of people.
But what Oliver is doing here is changing the argument.
The president's defending fringe ideas instead of defending the right to expression.
He went on to tweet, What's the difference between the president's Twitter feed and, say, Infowars?
To which I responded, What's the difference between a CNN reporter and a left-wing activist?
Now, I won't shy away from the fact that I'm obviously in favor of certain principles and trying to defend them, the right to free expression, which puts me in a rather activist-y position when we're dealing with certain issues.
But that's not a secret.
Not only am I a journalist, I'm a political commentator, and I've always been an information activist.
But when someone like Oliver Darcy or an organization like CNN pumps out activist rhetoric and opinions as fact, when are they going to come out and talk about how they, in fact, are activists?
And I have to wonder, what's the point of this tweet?
Is CNN trying to get Donald Trump banned because he's saying they're basically Infowars?
This isn't even the first time that CNN got a news organization suspended.
This is a story from just February.
Russia is backing a viral video company aimed at American millennials.
The story talks about Maffic Media, which is a pretty left-wing anti-war media group.
They say that Maffic is a company whose majority stakeholder is Ruptly, a subsidiary of RT, which is funded by the Russian government.
Although Maffic Media has hired contractors and freelancers in LA in recent months, the company is not registered in the US, it is registered in Germany.
Facebook suspended the pages on Friday, saying it would reach out to the people running them to ask that they disclose where the pages are run from Let's do a full stop right now.
with their parent company in order to get back on the platform.
The move was an unusual one for Facebook.
The company does not require users to provide information about parent companies.
But let's do a full stop right now.
This story was published on a Monday.
CNN waited until after MAFIC was suspended.
And why did CNN reach out to Facebook about MAFIC specifically and not, say, Al Jazeera or other state-funded news organizations like Telesur?
Why specifically MAFIC Media?
As Kevin Gostola writes for Shadowproof, how CNN led Facebook to censor pages of Russia-backed video company and manufactured a news story.
Kevin writes, CNN went in search for a story about a Russian-funded digital media project that produces viral videos aimed at undermining American democracy.
When CNN journalists could not find what they were looking for, they effectively manufactured the news by giving Facebook a pretext for removing the project's pages used to share videos.
Now, the cable news network had their story.
There was a point at which I said about CNN, Simply reporting on an issue doesn't mean they're actively trying to get them banned.
At this point, however, we've certainly crossed that line.
Oliver Darcy is actively complaining non-stop about these platforms and about what Donald Trump is doing.
CNN's journalists actively reach out to Facebook, targeting one company and ignoring several others.
It would seem, certainly, that CNN is just trying to get people banned.
And I have to wonder why.
Well, there's a lot of reasons.
I don't know for sure, but we do know that CNN's ratings are in the trash.
Why, just last week it was reported by Forbes that CNN drops 26% in primetime as Fox News dominates April cable ratings.
Since last year, the same month, CNN has seen a massive decline in viewership.
And it keeps happening.
Their viewership keeps going down.
As this happens, they become desperate, they thrash about and grasp at whatever they can.
Not only do they need spicy stories to try and get those views, but it's really great when the other companies that get the views get removed, because then what else do you have?
CNN.
Unfortunately, I doubt that would work.
I'm not saying that's the sole reason they're doing it, or even their direct motivation, but it certainly is convenient that CNN repeatedly tries to get people banned at the same time their ratings are going down.
But yes, let me reiterate.
Oliver Darcy said the only reason they got banned was because media outlets had to point it out for weeks.
He said on TV it was due to media pressure.
Oliver Darcy even played up the banning of Farrakhan to make it seem like it wasn't specifically targeting conservatives.
But as many people have pointed out, they probably only banned Farrakhan so that they wouldn't be accused of bias, as if people would fall for that, because many media outlets called Farrakhan far-right, which we know isn't true.
Why is it that Oliver Darcy can say on TV and on Twitter it was media pressure that got them banned, but then uncritically parrot the statement from Facebook about how they always do this?
They clearly don't.
Whatever their motivation really is, whatever the reason is they're doing it, maybe they're just left-wing activists, maybe they do have an agenda.
The point is, the groundwork is being laid to eliminate all conservatives from social media and from the public debate.
Don't take my word for it, take a look at these stories.
From the New York Times in 2016, emerging Republican platform goes far to the right.
From just about a week later, the most extreme Republican platform in memory.
This story from the exact same time.
The Republican platform is extremist, and so is anyone who supports it.
And those are just a few of the examples I quickly pulled up.
But of course, now we're seeing people be labeled far right.
This is the next step.
They call Trump supporters and Republicans extremists, and there you go.
Unfortunately for them, the data doesn't support this.
Pew Research, for instance, published this graphic.
We can clearly see that, yes, the Republican median has shifted to the right.
But look at the gap in the Democrats.
The Democrats have shifted so far left.
If any group is extreme, it is the Democrats, not the Republicans.
There's more than one graph that I have to show this phenomenon.
I've showed these things over and over again.
This from Quartz.
It's from VoteView.
And we can see that, yes, Republican median has shifted to the right a little bit.
It's still within 0.4 and 0.6 on this graph.
But look at the Democrats.
They've shot so far to the left in the past two years.
How is the rhetoric shifting to everyone being far right?
Well, it's simple.
These people are looking over here and seeing them as far right, when in fact, Republicans have mostly stayed in the same spot.
The Democrats, almost all of them, have shifted dramatically to the left.
Republicans, only slightly.
The question then arises, should conservatives be allowed to own phones?
Why should any conservative be allowed to spread their ideas over a phone?
A phone is a private platform.
Why can't the phone company remove you?
Should a conservative be allowed to use cars, drive on roads, go to stores?
Where does it stop?
People should be allowed to participate in public.
And while we see the Democrats drifting to the far left, we also see stories like this, where a rapper calls on God to take Trump's life.
Not only that, but we see Laura Ingraham on a casket, as well as Tommy Loren.
The fringe left regularly engages in violence.
They show up places, they bash people over the head, they throw mortar shells, etc.
You've seen it.
Why aren't they being banned?
Why are many of these accounts still active?
Many people say, oh, but Antifa is a disparate group of people.
You can't pinpoint them.
No, some of them have brands.
Now, some of them have been banned for sure.
But for the most part, they kind of get away with it.
Why Paul Joseph Watson?
He's denounced violence repeatedly.
How is he an extremist?
He may be stupid.
You could argue that.
I'm not personally saying that.
The point I'm trying to make is, if someone goes online and says something that is wrong, Why should they be banned for that?
Should people who are dumb not be allowed to use the internet?
Should people who are mentally ill not be allowed to use the internet?
Simply because someone says things that are incorrect doesn't make them an extremist.
Is that the position of CNN?
That only the smart people should be allowed to share their thoughts?
That is extremism.
When will CNN get banned?
They probably won't, because this action is meant to protect Facebook's bottom line from bad PR, which is generated by companies like CNN.
They lie, and they smear, and they do it, in my opinion, for money and political power.
But let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Mines at TimCast.
Stay tuned.
New videos every day at 4 p.m.
Eastern.
And I'll have more videos for you on my second channel, YouTube.com slash TimCast News, starting at 6 p.m.
