Thread by @radleybalko

This piece provides receipts for what I agree is regrettable anti-First Amendment sentiment among some elite journalists and academics. (Though I'm not sure it's all that new). But it also undermines its own premise by conflating that with . . .

tabletmag.com/sections/news/…

. . . non-state pressure on private companies (social media, cable providers, app stores, etc.) to prevent the spread of misinformation. It also does some eye rolling at the very idea that misinformation is something worth worrying about. Which I find baffling.

OANN and Newsmax built their audiences flattering the president with favorable coverage so he'd promote them. Which he did. The outlets' sole purpose was to present the lies of the man who led the most powerful country on earth as truth. I just don't see how private actors ...

... pressuring cable providers to drop propaganda outlets for the sitting president is much of a threat to free speech. Moreover, given Trump's own contempt for free speech and the free press, there's a contradiction in chastising media outlets for running op-eds . . .

. . . calling for limits on speech (which I personally wouldn't publish), then claiming it's censorious for people to call for private companies to de-platform outlets who amplified the president's "the media are the enemy of the people" shtick, or his threats . . .

. . . to use the power of his office to punish news outlets for negative coverage. In fact, if we're talking about the "spirit" of the FA, providing an echo chamber where a sitting president can threaten the media with little to no rebuttal or criticism . . .

. . . seems like much more an affront to the spirit of free speech than publishing an op-ed.

/end