by Jack
Selecting what news you will hear and what news you won’t has never been an objective of conservatives, but on the left it’s been been a hallmark. Socialist and communist countries are obsessed with filtering the news, as is every despot and dictatorship. Sadly, we see this leftist [news monitoring] at work on our college campi across America.
Recently it was disclosed that Fake book was using a panel of liberals in their 20’s to determine the so-called trending news. There was no polling, no scientific yardstick to determine “trending.” It was simply left up to this highly partisan panel. This is how “Black Lives Matters” stories took priority over rioting in Los Angeles by Hispanics upset with Trumps arrival.
I get the strong feeling our lefties in America care more about what is said in the news than freedom to report it in a fair and balanced manner. This is very troubling. But, it’s just one of many things being done today to subvert freedom and control our thinking.
I resent their devious and unehtical behavior, but it seems to be effective. The left is winning the war. Their cold war tactics are responsible for creating a great division along racial, economic and political lines and causing no end of turmoil in America.
I’m really becoming fedup with their rhetoric and this fake news. The left hates Fox News, but without them where’s the balance? Certainly not over at CNN or MSNBC.
Freedom of the press is fundamental to freedom we hold dear and at every level of society. Thats why we should demand real news, not opinion pieces posing as news. Let the people decide what is important to read, not the minders at Fake Book.
I stopped watching Fox News several weeks ago when every program became a support Trump ad. I’ve switched to CNN and now my favorite program is “The Lead with Jake Tapper.” Tapper was the only one I know of who called out Trump on his lying about Cruz’s dad being involved in the JFK killing.
FNC was also replaced by CNN for the #1 rated news show so I’m not alone in my move.
CNN Destroys Fox News in April Prime Time Ratings:
“While you weren’t looking, CNN has been busy demolishing the once-invincible ratings gap between themselves and Fox News. CNN beat Fox News decisively for their prime time lineup in April, and especially in the coveted age gap of 25-54. In fact, the only demographic in which Fox News beat CNN was the over 54 demographic, which is one of the least valuable to advertisers.
Neither was April a fluke. CNN has now beaten Fox News in prime time ratings for five out of the last 8 months. They have also scored wins in weekend ratings and are closing the gap in daytime ratings as well. Overall, where CNN used to have less than half of Fox News’ overall viewership, they now are behind Fox News by a measly 9%, and they continue to dominate MSNBC.”
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/05/03/cnn-destroys-fox-news-april-prime-time-ratings/
Here is a good related read.
The Scariest Reason Trump Won:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435195/donald-trump-won-because-many-republicans-arent-conservative?utm_source=NR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=May10
If Facebook did what they are accused of (and I think it’s likely they did), then this was absolutely wrong. While Facebook is a private entity, they run a service that nearly everyone uses, and they should not promote viewpoint discrimination in this way. This isn’t just a disservice to their conservative users, it’s a disservice to their liberal users, who could learn something they didn’t already know were it not for Facebook filtering out certain news items.
IMHO, Facebook can do anything they want and people can decide for themselves whether they want to use it or not. No one forces you to use Facebook any more than anyone forces you to watch MSNBC (aka MSLSD) or read the NYT. What they did by editing suppressing conservative news reporting is not wrong, just disgusting.
I think I finally may have come to terms with the ONE reason to vote for Trump — SCOTUS appointments. We know what Hillary will do. We have no idea what Trump will do. So I will probably end up holding my nose and vote against Hillary.
I agree FB probably did suppress conservative news article from appearing on their Trending file.
I am on several conservative newsfeed sites and several have complained about FB preventing their postings from appearing. Breitbart has been the one complaining the most.
The two problems are linked together. If newsfeeds are not allowed to post their articles they’re prevented from being amongst those trending. If they were actually being selected by an alga rhythm and not 20 year old liberals.
Thank you for saying that Peggy!
Fake Book is a good metaphor! Although I have an account there created years ago, all personal info there – as well as with my Twitter account – is bogus. Even including the name.
I decided long ago that putting personal info out onto the web only makes it easier for the bad guys (or the Fed snoopers) to see what you’re doing and take advantage. Once that personal info is out there, you can’t just take it back.
On another note – nobody should click on ANY Facebook ad. They aren’t vetted for nasties, and you could download some real problems. If an ad interests you, google the company and go from there.
If Facebook were a news organization, you’d have a gripe. But it isn’t, and you don’t.
Facebook can “trend” any way it wants. You don’t like it? Sell your shares, close your page. I mean, what the eff? This organization is supposed to reflect to you a world to your liking?
That’s what Fox News is for.
Libster, this falls roughly into the category of “truth in advertising.” Political manipulation of what is “priority news” based on one’s political bias is ok if it’s advertised as such, but when its done stealthly, as Fake Book did… its not okay. Their news wasn’t “trending”, but it was being prioritized because of someone’s politics. So, yes I do have a gripe. See my point?
PS What is a news organization today anyway? How would you define it? How much responsibility does a “news organization” have to simply report the news?
Your gripe is a completely legitimate one, so of course Libbya does not recognize or acknowledge it. Funny how that works.
News is often just regurgitated information taken from the AP and other news feeds. Sometimes the news comes from the mouth of a reporter on scene but mostly we get the talking heads and their expert guests…opinion.
Facebook is doing what other information sources have done for years. All of them should be transparent but we know that isn’t going to happen.
The NYT, San Francisco Chronicle, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, Slate, Time Magazine (ad infinitum) are news organization that slant (“trend”) the left wing news as bad as Facebook. I note that Libbya is silent about that. Go figure.
The one thing positive about this is that Facebook has been exposed for the left-wing scum they are.
Or, these journalistic enterprises do, in fact, report the news. But you don’t like the news.
Don’t blame you, really, but sticking your head into Rupert’s litter box is just going to get you another bitter disappointment, come November.
‘It’s Unreal’: Comedian Steven Crowder Files Legal Motion Against Facebook Amid Allegations Social Network Censors Conservative News:
“Amid allegations that Facebook news curators suppressed conservative news, comedian Steven Crowder, an outspoken conservative, has filed a legal motion against the social media giant requesting information.
Crowder’s Dallas-based attorney, Bill Richmond, said in a Tuesday statement that his office has filed a petition for “pre-suit discovery” in Dallas County, Texas, “seeking discovery from Facebook regarding the actions of its News Feed curators as well as its billing department.” The action, he said, is a step toward discovering ”what, if any, legal action is necessary to address the assertions that he has been targeted by Facebook for suppression due to his conservative political commentary.”
Richmond said the Gizmodo story on Facebook’s alleged censorship of conservative news “coincides with, and potentially provides and explanation for, Facebook’s mismanagement of payments made to Facebook by Mr. Crowder and its woefully biased and unprofessional treatment of his accounts during an ongoing billing dispute.”
“Facebook has chosen to avoid any transparency in the ongoing removal of certain political posts by Mr. Crowder, ignoring all requests for explanation of purported policy violations,” the statement added. “These issues have been ignored by Facebook and its Legal Department despite repeated attempts to resolve the issue on his behalf. Facebook’s ongoing refusal to take action regarding their clear-cut, inexcusable financial errors has necessitated that preliminary legal steps be taken.”
Crowder confirmed the legal action in an interview with TheBlaze, calling his treatment by Facebook “unreal.”
“There is a lot more going on behind the scenes that I can even talk about right now, but this is an issue about transparency and its treatment of business clients where money is exchanged,” he said.”
Continued.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/05/10/its-unreal-comedian-steven-crowder-files-legal-motion-against-facebook-amid-allegations-social-network-censors-conservative-news/
What “legal action” could possibly be taken against Facebook for this? They are legally allowed to censor whatever they want, for whatever reason they want. They *shouldn’t* censor conservative views, and doing so is unethical, but if Crowder is claiming that it’s illegal he’s a bigger moron than I thought he was.
Crowder has a business contract with FB. He was paying for their services unlike us who get it for free.
The article was clear that Crowder’s attorney is seeking information from FB to see if they did violate their business agreement.
I think you’ll agree that censuring someone who is paying for their services without telling them what the offensive post was is not acceptable. And refusing to comply with repeated request for specific details would be grounds for legal avenues to obtain the information. Any lawsuit would be determined based on the information if/when it is received.
I have to agree with Jack, Libby. Yes, Facebook is a private entity, but they (along with Twitter) have a virtual monopoly on social media–everyone uses this service, including conservatives, and they should try to be as objective as possible when it comes to something like this. If it were a small blog I’d agree they can do whatever they want. And as Jack said, they are denying manipulating trending in this way, so if they are doing so then they’re being dishonest.
OMG really?
Facebook is not news.
Fox is crap
CNN is crap
MSNBC is crap
Until you actually see how corrupt Media is controlled by about 6 people you will never get it.
Les Moonves said it: the corporate media simply doesn’t care about the well-being of America.
And the corporate media doesn’t really care about covering real issues that impact the public – like climate change or net neutrality – let alone covering those issues honestly or objectively.
The corporate media only cares about its bottom line, about ratings, and about getting more money from their advertisers.
Trump has received nearly 2 billion dollars worth of free media during this campaign cycle. Why it makes $ and ratings
Remember the Fairness Doctrine?
The Dupester is crap.
Chris, you’re missing the point. A tenet of the conservative gospel holds that a private corporate person should be able to do whatever … free of outside (government) interference … unless … this entity is doing something to thwart conservative interests.
That’s different, apparently.
Oh, I agree the conservative reaction is hypocritical. That doesn’t make Facebook’s conduct right, though.
Re Libbya : “A tenet of the conservative gospel holds that a private corporate person should be able to do whatever … free of outside (government) interference … unless … this entity is doing something to thwart conservative interests.”
Absolute nonsense from the Queen Ninny of Nonsense. No wonder Chris thinks the conservative reaction is hypocritical, The King Ninny concurs.
Exposing bias and objecting to is is not hypocritical, you morons, and it is not exclusive to conservatives or to two-faced, hypocritical, extreme left-wing jerk-trolls like you, Piss Chris and Libbya
A tenet of the conservative gospel holds that a private corporate person should be able to do whatever … free of outside (government) interference … unless … this entity is doing something to thwart conservative interests…
Libby you enjoy fabricating such nonsense, I know. But you could at least try to make these specious accusations sound plausible. Go on girl, give us a quote.
Libbya = Dupester = Chris = Nonsense = Ignorance = Specious Fabrication = Bigoted Idiots
Here’s a quote, Tina, provided above by Peggy:
““Facebook has chosen to avoid any transparency in the ongoing removal of certain political posts by Mr. Crowder, ignoring all requests for explanation of purported policy violations,” the statement added. “These issues have been ignored by Facebook and its Legal Department despite repeated attempts to resolve the issue on his behalf. Facebook’s ongoing refusal to take action regarding their clear-cut, inexcusable financial errors has necessitated that preliminary legal steps be taken.”
I don’t know what “financial errors” Crowder is referring to, since he’s making public accusations without providing any explanation for them, but it sounds like he’s suing at least partially over Facebook’s legal (but unethical) choice to censor conservative voices. That would somewhat support Libby’s claim above that at least some conservatives believe in government interference into private business matters when it suits them. Of course, Crowder doesn’t speak for all conservatives, so this is a generalization.
Crowder is PAYING for FB’s service. He has a business agreement/contract with them. He has the right to know if they are providing that service.
If you took your car in for an oil and filter change you’d expect them to do what you paid them for. And if later your engine blows up because they didn’t put any oil in your car you’d have grounds to take legal action. Right? Same with Crowder.
Piss Chris doesn’t get it.
Ah–that makes more sense, Peggy. Thanks for the clarification.
Absolute nonsense from the Queen Ninny Of Nonsense,
I think Mr Crowder and his attorney have had a bit of luck … as the conflating of a billing dispute with a censorship flack is just the sort of fortuitous confluence that delights the heart of an attorney.
Whether there’s any merit to it is entirely beside the point. Kind of like the Carolina Leg using the Charlotte bathroom ordinance to strike back with something much more broadly discriminatory. And what kind of “conservative” government interferes with “local control”, anyway?
The hypocrisies multiple like mosquitos.