This is a lot like many people's social media philosophy: block the voices you don't want to hear.

This is a lot like many people's social media philosophy: block the voices you don't want to hear. That is to say, if they disagree with you, prevent them from entering your sphere.

This is a bad philosophy on social media and it's a exponentially worse when it's a government. But what is unexpected? The #GOP has spent at least a decade and a half decrying "liberal media" and "media bias," usually directed towards outlets that don't jump on the PR bandwagon. And #DonaldTrump had spent the past year and a half whining about the media not treating him fairly, because some media outlets fact-check and research instead of merely reprinting accolades. The New York Times​​ and POLITICO​​ are two such entities.

Now, there are no laws requiring any political entity to give access to reporters, only that the media must remain a free press. The Executive can deny that access to anyone they want, but it's bad form and makes one wonder of what the President is fearful the NYT and Politico knowing.

There have been a lot of memes and articles from various sectors of the internet since Trump was elected President, each of them explaining what and how fascism comes to take over a society. Each article has a slot somewhere for restricting, imprisoning or demonizing a free press.

Right now, this is President Bannon testing the waters. How far can you go before you run into a Constitutional crisis? The Republicans spent decades slamming the NYT and other fact checking "liberal" news outlets, so they can expect their Conservative followers to jump on board with this decision. Next, they will try the HuffPo and other alternative media. Then your mainstream outlets, like ABC, CBS and NBC. And finally, only Fox News and Breitbart will remain.

But then there's the flip side: if the senior editors of these banned media outlets are worth their paychecks they'll take the sparring gloves off and really dig into Trump and Co.'s backgrounds (http://www.vox.com/2017/2/24/14725950/russian-flag-cpac). While the NYT and Politico might have more integrity than to publish rumors and speculation, other sources will gladly post unverified information. And you can only hear that Richard Gere story so many times before, well, you know.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/us/politics/white-house-sean-spicer-briefing.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

Comments

Stephen Holst said…
I think personally though there's a difference between blocking voices you don't want to hear and blocking a troll. If someone attacks you as a person and not the issues at hand then they are not worthy of being granted a microphone.
Lorne Thomas said…
When you check the fact checking of the NYT, it is flim flam at best and supported by opinions and suppositions, but it is skillfully targeted to appeal to the people on the bottom of the curve on the intelligence tests. See how successful they are?
Jason ON said…
Stephen Holst, you're right, there is that difference, however many people don't see it and just block dissenting ideas.

Popular posts from this blog

So, I asked Andrew Tamm, who filled my Stream with a hundred (sarcasm there) animated gifs and cat pictures to...

I'm shutting down Google+ for the night and quite possibly for the weekend.