The Left-wing Marxists who comprise the vast majority of “mainstream” media journalists have often lamented the fact that they, long ago, lost their monopoly on news and information.
It started with the talk radio revolution begun by Rush Limbaugh, whose program, launched nationwide in 1988, literally saved AM radio and, for several years, served as the only conservative alternative to the Leftist mainstream’s information domination.
In the mid-1990s, the Internet did to the news industry what Limbaugh did for talk radio: The ‘World Wide Web’ sparked a revolution in how Americans consumed and disseminated information by spawning thousands of independent news organizations, all of which competed with the Left-wing legacy news organizations for eyeballs and, eventually, advertising dollars.
Over time, the same Left-wing media that lamented the loss of their monopoly doubled down on the reasons for losing audience — generating lopsided news coverage that alienated more than half the country because of political bias.
Fast forward to now: Rather than change their approach to how they present the news, as in, rather than become more trustworthy, unbiased, balanced, reliable sources of information (like many of their independent competitors) the Left-wing legacy media is attempting to drive their conservative competition from the field, and they are increasingly turning to the biased social media behemoths in order to do so.
That helps explain why The New York Times is complaining about how YouTube is ‘allowing’ conservative — “Right-wing extremist” — voices to remain on the platform, in a naked threat to force the social media company to deplatform or demonetize as many of them as possible.
The Times dedicated it’s Sunday front page to this story: “The Making of a YouTube Radical: How the Site’s Algorithms Played Into the Hands of the Far Right,” as reported by The Gateway Pundit.
The crux of the story is this: It’s not the popularity of conservative YouTube stars that drives their viewership, oh no: It’s YouTube’s fault for the way its engineers have structured the platform’s algorithms! And, hint, hint, you know, if YouTube would just change those algorithms, why, those ‘Right-wing extremists’ wouldn’t be nearly as popular.
Or better yet, why not just kick them off YouTube altogether? (Related: Facebook bans Natural News; Health Ranger responds with message for humanity.)
A buddy on the east coast just sent this to me.
They put the “Making Of A Youtube Radical” collage on the front page of the Sunday edition of the @nytimes.
Now it appears that I’m also a part of a “stew of emotional content”?
— Philip DeFranco (@PhillyD) June 9, 2019
Indy journalist Tim Pool noted the absurdity of the Times’ story and the overall state of today’s legacy media in a tweet: “The absolute state of journalism…The ‘newspaper of record’ publishing a front page story about one guy who watched youtube videos…there is no data, its [sp] an anecdote, the framing inverts the conclusion of the story, the core premise is easily debunked.”
The absolute state of journalism
The 'newspaper of record' publishing a front page story about one guy who watched youtube videos
There is no data, its an anecdote, the framing inverts the conclusion of the story, the core premise is easily debunked https://t.co/vk5sh5ZFId
— Tim Pool (@Timcast) June 9, 2019
Without question, this is just a thinly veiled attempt by the Times to force YouTube to ‘take action’ against popular conservative stars on the platform who dare — dare — question the Left-wing narrative about anything (politics, culture, immigration, LGBT, socialism, etc.).
And what’s more, this is only going to get worse, especially as the 2020 election cycle nears.
It won’t matter which lunatic Democratic voters eventually settle on for their party nominee to face off against a rising (and popular) POTUS Donald Trump: The Left-wing legacy media will rally around him or her like they are the second coming of some deity (or Barack Obama) while continuing to push voices supportive of the president offline, off social media platforms, and out of the public square.
That is, unless the administration steps in and a) defines social media as either a publisher — which Facebook has claimed to be (in court) — or an unbiased platform which must then conform to anti-discrimination standards.