Calls for censorship: The last desperate gasp of our dying legacy media
WASHINGTON. It’s sometimes hard to know if the folks at The New York Times are simply trolling us or if they’re completely serious. Times reporter Kevin Roose spun quite a yarn last Sunday entitled, “The Making of a YouTube Radical.” By radical, he and his paper mean those free-thinking Americans whose ideas lack the proper vetting from, well, them. Those that require censorship.
The November day that shook their world
Since the election of Donald Trump to the nation’s highest office, the “newspaper of record” has been in a profound funk. “Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?” asked Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. on the morning of November 9, 2016.
Throwback Read (11/2016) Lefty PTSD: MSM, ‘progressives,’ ignite anti-Trump frenzy
The answer to his question was found in the cold, hard fact that candidate Trump was that very morning America’s President-elect. And so, the Times has led the mainstream media’s charge to delegitimize the Trump presidency. And with it, the “deplorables” who elected him.
The fight for censorship of the radicalized
One such deplorable is the subject of reporter Roose’s tall tale. Caleb Cain is the 26-year-old millennial whose Gulliver-like travels among the Internet’s conservative YouTube Lilliputs “radicalized” the tender lad.
And what was the nature of Cain’s radicalization? According to Roose, far-right YouTubers…
“… convinced him that Western civilization was under threat from Muslim immigrants and cultural Marxists, that innate I.Q. differences explained racial disparities, and that feminism was a dangerous ideology.”
Lone wolf jihadist attacks in the West, the popularity of socialism among ignorant millennials, and indiscriminate and unproved accusations of sexual misconduct by the #MeToo movement speak to the aforementioned threats.
Worries over race and brains
But Roose’s seeming concern over the tired trope of racial disparities in I.Q. is of little consequence to most on the right. But the correlation between skin color and intelligence is of greater concern to the guardians of political correctness at the Times.
One week before voters ended the presidential ambitions of the extremely white Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Times breathlessly noted:
“It’s probably the biggest demographic story of this election: Hillary Clinton has made big gains with well-educated whites, particularly women. And Donald J. Trump has continued recent Republican gains in winning over less educated whites, particularly men.”
It is the white elitists at The New York Times, and not conservatives, who overwhelmingly obsess over race and intelligence. The upshot to Democrats? Those of a certain race and breeding are better to rule the great, unwashed masses.
And for those of lesser breeding that never availed themselves of the safe-space utopias of academia not to recognize this truth is, well, plain stupid. And they must be washed with the censor brush.
Rejecting equality, embracing rage
For the folks of the left, the gift of equality, given to us by our Creator, is an outdated superstition. Like the freedoms outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Documents whose Enlightenment ideal of equality flies in the face of these lofty and elite intellectual products of the university farm system.
This is ironic in that the fuel powering the left is not a product of mind but of raw emotion. In fact, it’s an eternal flame of outrage. And for reporter Roose, his outrage is at the right’s opposition to the unanswerable, elitist rule.
“The radicalization of young men is driven by a complex stew of emotional, economic and political elements, many having nothing to do with social media. But critics and independent researchers say YouTube has inadvertently created a dangerous on-ramp to extremism by combining two things: a business model that rewards provocative videos with exposure and advertising dollars, and an algorithm that guides users down personalized paths meant to keep them glued to their screens.”
Losing in the marketplace of ideas
In other words, YouTube is one of the Internet’s more successful marketplaces of ideas, tailoring the user’s interests to content and its creators to advertising dollars. A win for all concerned.
Conspicuously missing from this mix is the mainstream media. The traditional gatekeepers of all that is and isn’t acceptable in thought, speech, and action. Today, they’re like the scruffy people whose gaze you avert while waiting for the green light at a freeway entrance. The ones that now hold out tin cups and cardboard signs with the scrawl, “Can’t work due to irrelevance.”
The souls standing on the shoulder of the information superhighway.
These relics of yesteryear would have us believe all unapproved views are products of “extremism.”
That President Trump has Hitlarian inclinations while simultaneously insisting Bernie Sanders’ national socialist designs for America are “a pathway to ‘economic rights,’ invoking the accomplishments of [Franklin Delano] Roosevelt and [Dr. Martin Luther] King.” (Bernie Sanders Delivers Defense of His Democratic Socialist Philosophy)
Silicon Valley strongmen
And so, the Times has admitted the days when newspapers controlled the national conversation through the twisting of information or its omission, must give way to the clever programmers of social media companies in ditzy California’s Silicon Valley.
Of YouTube, the Times insists the company is “changing its recommendation algorithm to reduce the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories.” (“YouTube Unleashed a Conspiracy Theory Boom. Can It Be Contained?“)
An ironic statement in light of the Times’ peddling – for two long years – the now discredited Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy theory.
God save the Queen
The Times’ fear of “radicalization” is nothing new. In its 2016 endorsement of Hillary Clinton, the newspaper of record noted:
“The next president will take office with bigoted, tribalist movements and their leaders on the march… and the pressures of globalization are eroding democratic values, fraying alliances and challenging in the ideals of tolerance and charity.”
And there you have it. The so-called “radical” are members of a tribe not approved by our betters at the Times. And we must never forget that kingship is the hallmark of ancient tribalism.
No kings here
In 2016, America’s radicalized moved past tribalism and rejected the Times’ preordained queen. Instead, the radicalized sided with the nation’s Founders, who wrote in the Constitution’s Article I:
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States.”
Alexander Hamilton called the aforementioned clause the “cornerstone of republican government.” However, the Times rejects this radical rejection of tribal loyalty to tribal royalty.
The censorship of the “Enemies of the People”
YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram can ban the “radicalized” from their platforms all they want.
In 2016, the ballot box proved a more valuable venue of expression than social media platforms. And Silicon Valley’s social media moguls are fools for thinking the radicalized can be censored out of existence.
Nonetheless, the calls by our so-called free press to censor at their will underscores their contempt for First Amendment freedom. And it more than affirms President Trump’s appropriate moniker for these nattering nabobs: “Enemies of the People.”