A month or so ago, Facebook told me my page was in danger of being deleted.
They banned me from advertising and boosting posts.
They then started deleting posts from my page, mostly about COVID.
They also started flagging posts from years ago.
Then they started telling me I violated their terms on extremist content without telling me what posts they were referring to.
Then they banned me from live streaming on Facebook while continuing the advertising ban.
They refused to accept my appeal or review their false allegations.
Let’s face it, Facebook is adding a bunch of bogus ‘violations’ to justify taking my page down when I’ve not done anything remotely wrong.
In addition to all of the above, and more, they have eliminated the syndication of my posts in the standard Facebook news feed. My audience is no longer allowed to see my posts in their feed. They have to come to my page directly because they chose to seek out my content.
As a result, posts that averaged thousands of views and hundreds of interactions now get only 30 or so views with 1 or 2 interactions.
This is blatant censorship.
This is the analytics for just one recent week after the censorship started. These numbers aren’t nearly as dramatic as the totality of decline in traffic and interaction.
I have over 10k followers on Facebook. Over 2k on YouTube.
Almost none of them have followed me onto other platforms. Whether they didn’t believe the censorship was really that bad, or they didn’t think it was going to happen to me, I don’t know. However, the time has come.
I need you to follow me on Telegram and Rumble … that’s all.
If you follow me elsewhere, that’s great, thank you. However, I post all of my videos on Rumble, and all of my social media posts on Telegram.
Those two platforms are my primary platforms for content. All of the others are less active and secondary.
I assume, since you subscribe to this newsletter, you support my show and what I do for my audience. Now, I’m asking my audience to do something for me. Please use the links below to follow me on Telegram and Rumble.
Mainstream news coverage does not reflect the political make-up of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Mainstream media is exceedingly likely to cover news through a partisan filter. So it’s no surprise that liberals and conservatives are polarized when it comes to news sources they trust and utilize.
In 2019, Media Research Center analyzed 540 hours of news coverage on CNN and MSNBC over three randomly-selected weeks. The two networks conducted nearly the same number of interviews with members of Congress. In total, they interviewed 284 Democratic members of congress compared to just 40 Republican. MSNBC leaned even more to the left, as they interviewed 148 Democrats and only 11 republicans.
Both networks gave opposing questions to the Republicans but gave friendly questions to the Democrats. Meaning, they focused on Democratic talking points and agendas.
It’s common practice to ask a political interviewee to give an answer to the argument of the opposite side, but consistently asking Republicans to answer to Democratic talking points, while hardly ever asking Democrats to do the same thing, speaks to the fact that the networks are actually choosing sides.
Eric Merkley, a contributor to the American Politics and Policy website who specializes in public opinion and political communication, recently studied 400,000 news stories on economics published over three decades and found that the mainstream portrayed liberal politicians in a better light than their conservative colleagues.
The news stories were on unemployment and inflation between 1985 and 2013 from the Associated Press and a variety of mainstream newspapers, including the New York Times, USA Today, and those with histories of backing the Republican Party, such as the Dallas Morning News and the San Diego Union-Tribune.
He found that the tenor on economic news is more favorable during Democratic presidencies compared to Republican. He also found that only Republican administrations are treated with more negative coverage in response to short-term increases in unemployment or the inflation rate.
The lapdog MSM has continued to give Obama a pass on most of his assault on the press. If they’d shown anywhere near the outrage they show now towards President Trump’s words for Obama’s actions, maybe they could be taken seriously.
On Thursday, the Columbia Journalism Review reported on the results of a Freedom of Information Act request for documents related to the Obama Justice Department’s attempts to crack down on leaks to reporters which reveal that the Obama administration’s actions against the press “were broader than previously known.”
CJR’s report, authored by Ramya Krishnan and Trevor Timm, is based on a highly redacted 59-page report by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility completed Dec. 9, 2014 and obtained via FOIA request by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and the Freedom of the Press Foundation (where Krishnan and Timm work, respectively).
“In 2013, the Justice Department launched a brazen attack on press freedom, issuing sweeping subpoenas for the phone records of the Associated Press and several of its reporters and editors as part of a leak investigation,” the authors report. While those subpoenas have long been understood as “a massive intrusion into newsgathering operations,” they note, the recently unearthed 2014 report reveals that the subpoenas targeting AP “told only part of the story.”
The Office of Professional Responsibility’s report on the Obama Justice Department’s subpoenas of AP phone records reveals that “the DOJ’s actions against the AP were broader than previously known, and that the DOJ considered subpoenaing the phone records of other news organizations, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and ABC News,” the authors explain. The report also reveals “how narrowly the DOJ interprets the Media Guidelines, the agency’s internal rules for obtaining reporters’ data.”
