Thread by @sfrantzman

Thread: One thing that disappoints me in some media is seeing online or print platforms give prominent oped space to offensive, racist, inflammatory articles that are incitement under the guise of the "the author is important"

There are a lot of important voices. When a publication chooses a voice and gives it huge prominence for days on the home page, they're not just publishing something random, they're endorsing it. Because it is being given special treatment of prominence.

The publication can't then hide behind any critique of it by pretending critics are trying to "censor" the content or "deplatform" it...because one has played a role in giving it more attention.

If, for instance, a publication puts out some inflammatory offensive article for days in a prominent or "featured" area and doesn't have an opposing piece, there is an agenda here. Is it for clicks? Is there some influence behind it?

Media organizations have thousands of articles to chose from and give a place of importance to. It's not a free speech corner at a park, it's not a free-for-all where the audience chooses. The platform (i.e people) choose. So that implies that criticism can't be hidden from.

Why was it published? Because the author is an important voice? Is the author important? Who says that? The author? Or by virtue of publishing it, did one enter a catch-22 of "this is important because it is published, see".

I believe that major or medium media should not give special treatment to the more extreme voices. They shouldn't get 2,500 words instead of the usual 900. They shouldn't get special place on the website. Even if they are "important" there are many important decent voices to run.

It's disappointing also to see extremism for extremism's sake run, when it could and should be edited. There are no voices that are so important that a platform can't ask them for edits or take out a particularly offensive sentence. After all, they want the platform.

I don't accept the theory that it's censorship or deplatforming or something like that to say "no." Media has a role to play in the conversation. It's not just a free for all. And it shouldn't be just for clicks. Saying "no" isn't censoring, it's moving it to another venue