The New York Observer has a fascinating article on how the media, including high tech companies, are managing the 2016 presidential campaign.
Liz Crokin’s article of August 12 is a must-read. Excerpts follow, emphases mine.
Most of us know that The New York Times and The Washington Post are the most prominent newspapers in the tank for Hillary Clinton. We also know that many Americans refer to CNN as the Clinton News Network.
However, Crokin, an award-winning journalist and author, gives us solid evidence that Apple, Google, Twitter and others are manipulating what the public sees in a variety of ways.
Donald Trump supporters can easily fall foul of Apple, which sees a duty to warn people about the Republican nominee:
I began looking into how strong the bias and censorship runs in these forums after I did an interview on the pro-Trump podcast, MAGAPod. The show’s host, Mark Hammond, was disappointed Apple wouldn’t run his show without an “explicit” warning. Hammond’s podcast didn’t contain content that would be deemed explicit under Apple’s policy, and most other shows in the News & Politics category aren’t labeled as such.
On June 18, Hammond talked to Sandra, a representative from Apple. She explained that, since the description of his show is pro-Trump, his show is explicit in nature—because the subject matter is Donald Trump. So, an Apple employee concluded the Republican presidential candidate is explicit.
Liz Crokin did some investigation, namely on iTunes, and found that none of the content, even when it related to terrorism or dictators, had such warnings. MAGAPod’s host, Mark Hammond, contacted Apple to point that out. An Apple representative promised to update his podcast to ‘clean’ within 24 hours.
Apple outright banned a video game about Hillary Clinton’s missing emails, ‘Capitol HillAwry’, until Breitbart published a story about it. It is now available.
Yet, Apple sees no need to warn online aficionados about anti-Trump content, however. A foul video game, Dump Trump, gets the go-ahead.
Apple also manipulates customers’ news feeds. As Crokin discovered, even selecting a conservative outlet as first choice does not mean that the other channels in the mix will be right-of-centre:
Of all the channels listed in the Apple News politics section, only two of the 16 arguably lean right—the rest are reliably left-wing.
Apple claim they have no skin in the political game, yet:
some of their executives—including CEO Tim Cook—actively support Clinton’s campaign. Buzzfeed recently obtained an invitation to a private $50,000-per-plate fundraiser Cook is hosting for Clinton with his Apple colleague, Lisa Jackson, at the end of this month.
There would be nothing wrong with that if Apple were not restricting what customers can see and play. However, they are playing an elitist, paternal role by censoring anything anti-Clinton — until customers complain.
Wikileaks’ Julian Assange found evidence that Clinton is using Google in her campaign:
It’s been widely reported Clinton hired Eric Schmidt—chairman of Alphabet, the parent company of Google—to set up a tech company called The Groundwork. Assange claims this was to ensure Clinton had the “engineering talent to win the election.” He also pointed out that many members of Clinton’s staff have worked for Google, and some of her former employees now work at Google.
This means that if you key in search terms such as “Hillary Clinton criminal charges” into Google, you get results for “Hillary Clinton crime reform”.
Similar manipulations existed for Google searches on Donald Trump, comparing him to an historical figure. One such wheeze went as follows:
In July, searches for Trump’s book, Crippled America, returned images of Adolf Hitler’s manifesto Mein Kampf.
After these came to light, Google fixed them, but:
again, why do these issues always conveniently disparage Trump and help Clinton?
Twitter is also in the censorship game in favour of Democrats. Breitbart fans know that the site’s technical editor Milo Yiannopoulos has had his account banned for life.
However, what many people do not know is that Twitter banned black rapper Azealia Banks after she came out in support of Trump.
Such Twitter censorship is not new. This week, Buzzfeed found out that in 2015:
then-Twitter CEO Dick Costolo secretly ordered employees to filter out abusive and hateful replies to President Barack Obama.
No doubt a lot of people complained about their Obamacare premiums skyrocketing and their doctor’s retirement because of the programme. Not hateful, just truthful.
Now:
the platform also changed its algorithms to promote Clinton while giving negative exposure to Trump.
Furthermore, pro-Trump Twitter users find they are often unable to retweet comments favouring their candidate.
Instagram is also in the mix. They allow topless photos of Melania Trump but censored an Australian artist’s depiction of Hillary Clinton in a bikini.
Facebook allows far-left organisations and movements to maintain their pages while closing down pages promoting conservative ideas:
It should be noted that Facebook employees have donated more to Clinton than to any other candidate.
Crokin ended her article with a takedown of CNN coverage. Everyone I know in the US watches CNN. This is what they are seeing and hearing:
as NewsBusters pointed out for just one day, “CNN set aside nearly half of its air time on Wednesday’s New Day to various recent controversies involving the Trump campaign — 1 hour, 24 minutes, and 18 seconds over three hours.
Yet, when it came to the secret $400m airlift to Iran:
John Berman gave a 27-second news brief to the report, but didn’t mention that the payment was sent on “an unmarked cargo plane.” New Day, therefore, devoted over 187 times more coverage to Trump than to the millions to Iran.
Crokin notes that when CNN have two Republicans and two Democrats on a panel, one of the Republicans is always anti-Trump.
Then, there’s their news site:
Right now, CNN has a story on its site called “Which Republicans oppose Trump and why?” There’s no corresponding story about Democrats who oppose Clinton, even though her underdog challenger in the primary lasted far longer and received far more votes than any of Trump’s Republican challengers.
Crokin rightly concludes:
These companies are engaging in activity that can quickly lead down a very dangerous slippery slope and this should concern all freedom-loving Americans—not just conservatives.
It should be noted that the publisher of the Observer is Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Every Trump-related article or op-ed piece has a disclaimer.
I plan to feature more US censorship articles in the next few weeks.
23 comments
August 14, 2016 at 10:18 pm
annagracewood
Reblogged this on The Cross Is All We Need.
LikeLike
August 15, 2016 at 8:36 am
churchmouse
Thank you, Anna, for the reblog. I greatly appreciate it.
May God bless you and your family in the week ahead.
LikeLike
August 15, 2016 at 12:06 am
oldpoet56
Nothing surprising here.
LikeLike
August 15, 2016 at 8:38 am
churchmouse
I do not remember reading about censorship like this in previous campaigns, e.g. 2008 or 2012, and I followed both closely.
LikeLike
August 15, 2016 at 12:06 am
oldpoet56
Reblogged this on Truth Troubles: Why people hate the truths' of the real world.
LikeLike
August 15, 2016 at 8:39 am
churchmouse
Thank you very much for the reblog — much appreciated.
LikeLike
August 15, 2016 at 7:13 am
sackersonwp
Interesting. Gels with a piece I wrote recently on Milo Yiannopoulos that never seemed to reach the sidebar blogfeed:
http://theylaughedatnoah.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/there-is-something-going-on.html
Yet yesterday’s piece was on the widget within 10 minutes of publication.
LikeLike
August 15, 2016 at 8:46 am
churchmouse
I remember reading that and thinking there was probably a temporary glitch on Google’s part, nothing more.
Now that I’ve read the post in question and your note on publication, I, too, think something’s up. As you say, Google is denying Milo the oxygen of publicity. He does not meet the required narrative. Nor does the black rapper mentioned in my post. For my readers:
http://theylaughedatnoah.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/a-penny-for-milos-thoughts.html
LikeLike
August 15, 2016 at 10:31 am
Lecroix
Reblogged this on Contra la ley "antitabaco" and commented:
Más sobre las manipulaciones políticas que ejercen los gigantes de la red como apple, google o twitter, en este caso sobre las elecciones en EEUU.
LikeLike
August 16, 2016 at 8:44 am
churchmouse
Thank you, Lecroix, for the reblog — greatly appreciated.
I was tempted to ‘like’ Ramrock’s comment but upvoted yours instead. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 16, 2016 at 10:28 am
Lecroix
Feel free to like his comment :). I’d rather comments be kept within reasonably polite boundaries, but that’s just me. Sometimes the spontaneity of some readers is refreshing, as I seem to lack it myself 🙂
LikeLike
August 16, 2016 at 10:40 am
churchmouse
Thanks, but no, I don’t want to encourage anything. 🙂
LikeLike
August 15, 2016 at 12:51 pm
Alec
Hi Churchmouse,
As things ratchet steadily downwards in the US, people are sometimes forced to face aspects of the new social reality. But for the most part, they refuse accept the picture the puzzle pieces are forming. The media you’re exposing is one of the pieces.
The framework of new media is part of the problem. Bias and censorship are routinely done behind the scenes at many levels and with little exposure. The real whistle-blowers are neutralized. Fakes are held out as heroes to the public, who are only too glad to have someone, anyone “telling it like it is”.
Except, what people like Snowden and Assange are telling is carefully crafted to support a different agenda than they’re letting on.
What’s the difference between a fascist industrialist and a murderous Fabian? If only it were a joke.
LikeLike
August 15, 2016 at 11:10 pm
churchmouse
Thanks, Alec, for your comment.
Please explain why Trump is a ‘fascist industrialist’.
I get ‘industrialist’. I do not understand ‘fascist’.
LikeLike
August 16, 2016 at 12:28 am
Alec
Hi Churchmouse,
Industrial power = corporate power. Trump is a corporate real estate master, therefore a twenty-first century industrialist.
Fascism is about power. It is about the financial good of industry and the chief governmental executives first and foremost. Citizens have worth and value only to the degree the are able to contribute to the strength of the nation as defined in economic terms.
There are gentle fascisms and harsh fascisms. But fascists are never constrained by the concepts of unalienable rights as summarized in documents like the Magna Carta, the US Bill of Rights, or even things like the Geneva Convention.
There’s a cynical joke that the first person in a social media discussion who mentions Nazis or Hitler loses. There’s a whole lot of uninformed clamoring against Trump just as there is against Clinton. Nevertheless, just because many on the Left call Trump a fascist without explaining what they mean does not invalidate the claim. The man’s own statements show his ideas about how he would apply law to those he sees as the other.
Trump uses the typical fascist appeal to the lowest common denominator. He fans the hatreds and fears of the failing Middle Classes – whites against African-Americans and Mexicans, Christians against Muslims, etc. Real problems exist, but the solution he presents is jingoistic dualism: us -vs- them, “we’re” good they’re evil, just send them away and all will be rosy.
Does he speak in hyperbole? Who knows?
“I would bring back waterboarding and I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.” -Donald Trump, Republican Presidential Debate, ABC News 2016)
LikeLike
August 16, 2016 at 12:46 am
churchmouse
Okay, thanks.
That last quote is one of many. Others are much more helpful to America and her people. Many people also think that words predict actions. Trump goes to great lengths to tailor his message to his audiences. He also said that he would not run for president unless the country were in danger.
Just out of interest, have you taken the ‘I Side With’ presidential quiz? Not asking for results, just recommending.
LikeLike
August 16, 2016 at 8:31 am
churchmouse
Here is Donald Trump’s position on radical Islam, as given in Youngstown, Ohio, on August 15, 2016:
There are several footnotes on most pages: a total of 131.
No mention of waterboarding. In fact, he has sensible, centrist ideas.
It seems, Alec as if you are cherrypicking quotes from primary season. Have you read Trump’s website?
LikeLike
August 16, 2016 at 10:18 am
Alec
Hi churchmouse,
Both choices are bad ones. I’ve explained my reasoning for categorizing Mr Trump as I have. Perhaps I’m wrong. Hopefully I am.
Here’s an excerpt from a letter from a friend of mine, quoting someone I usually do not agree with, Chris Hedges:
quote:
“Fascism is aided and advanced by the apathy of those who are tired of being conned and lied to by a bankrupt liberal establishment, whose only reason to vote for a politician or support a political party is to elect the least worst. This, for many voters, is the best Clinton can offer.”
Then closes with this:
“If Clinton prevails in the general election Trump may disappear, but the fascist sentiments will expand. Another Trump, perhaps more vile, will be vomited up from the bowels of the decayed political system…Tremendous damage has been done by corporate power and the college-educated elites to our capitalist democracy. The longer the elites, who oversaw this disemboweling of the country on behalf of corporations—who believe, as does CBS Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves, that however bad Trump would be for America he would at least be good for corporate profit—remain in charge, the worse it is going to get.”
endquote
In any case, sorry for adding the line about the two candidates. Did not mean to take the discussion off the target of media.
LikeLike
August 16, 2016 at 10:37 am
churchmouse
You dislike Trump. I dislike the inference that he is fascist.
This is the page from which you quoted:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/the_revenge_of_the_lower_classes_and_the_rise_of_american_fascism_20160302
I hesitate to allow such an overblown perspective on my site but also believe that, where someone is cited, a link should be supplied.
I do not think you have watched or read any Trump speeches or addresses — or even looked at the policies on his website. It seems to me you are receiving your Trump information third hand, e.g. from people like Chris Hedges then using his statements as an excuse for America to go down the plughole, which it will if Hillary Clinton is elected.
People in a similar position — and there are many — would do well to read about HRC’s past and present then ask themselves whether she is fit and honest enough to govern the United States.
This is a general statement: I find it odd that that group of people, purporting to be true Christians, would allow that to happen to their fellow citizens.
Sorry, this is not the election for Americans to play Moral High Ground. In fact, the irony is that in playing Moral High Ground, these people are allowing a person of highly questionable morals and ethics to become the leader of the free world. None of them should come crying here come November.
LikeLike
August 16, 2016 at 11:04 am
Alec
Hi Churchmouse,
Just a few clarifications. I quoted a private letter from a friend of mine, who had not attributed the source as Truthdig.
I have been following Trump and listening to his speeches. I also live in NYC where I have observed his actions over many years. He is anything but the “centrist populist” his media campaign is making him out to be.
And isn’t media manipulation the point of your post?
Nowhere have I advocated Hillary Clinton. I agree completely with you assessment of her.
Again, apologies for throwing out the line bringing Clinton and Trump into this post. It obviously touched a nerve, which was not my intention. Forgive me.
LikeLike
August 16, 2016 at 11:25 am
churchmouse
People need to know what this election means, especially Christians. Our whole ethos is built around Christ’s injunction to love they neighbour. Voting responsibly in this election is paramount in showing love for thy neighbour. If Clinton wins, Americans will find themselves much worse off in many respects than they are today.
I am sorry your years in New York have poisoned your view of Donald Trump, a man who exercises a lot of private charity that only his family and the families he helps know about.
Although I do not live in New York, I have been following Trump’s life and career since 1979. I would never claim he is perfect, but he’s a lot better than his opponent.
General statement: it seems there is no room among a segment of the notionally holy and God-fearing allowing him to repent. All they see are his past sins. (To cite one example, from what I have read, Barron’s birth ten years ago caused him to reconsider some of his previous positions, e.g. abortion.)
I submit to those people that he has repented and continues to do so.
Why do you think I wrote about Rahab in May?
I can think of a lot worse people in this world, which brings me back to my point on the Moral High Ground and Hillary. Whilst you have not advocated Hillary, the condemnation of Trump helps to enable her potential victory.
You bet this conversation has touched a nerve, but, brother, this is all in the name of discourse and needs to get out there. I am quite happy to go on hammer and tongs about this. But you know that already. 😉
LikeLike
August 15, 2016 at 2:51 pm
undergroundpewster
The bias of the media can now be disseminated through the new channels created by the internet, and it behooves us all to preform a critical analysis of the information coming into our ears and eyes. Where does it come from and who does it benefit are two key questions. Unfortunately, when internet search engines are used as a resource, any attempt to perform an unbiased analysis can be hijacked by those who control the search engines. It is the new battle to control what we hear and how we think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 15, 2016 at 3:06 pm
sackersonwp
That does seem to be a promisingly exploitable weakness.
LikeLike