RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/14/facebooks-nonpartisan-fact-checking-arbiter-trashed-republicans-on-russian-propaganda-outlet/

The ‘independent certifier’ who retweeted the claim that all Republican voters are racists approved as a Facebook fact-checker an organization funded by Chinese Communists and U.S. Democrats.

A professor Facebook has empowered to decide who can become a fact-checker is an open political leftist who has expressed animus against all Republican U.S. voters, according to recently uncovered documents exposing the official — and the process by which social media censors obtain their powers.

According to Jack Houghton of Sky News, the platform’s fact-checking certifier Margot Susca retweeted the claim that racism is “embraced by nearly half of the country’s electorate” in America, called herself a member of Hillary Clinton’s “team” in 2019, and on Russian propaganda network RT she insisted that the U.S. president’s speeches should not be broadcast. Susca is an American University journalism professor and has been a “certifier” for the International Fact-Checking Network since 2017.

ICFN is run by the leftist journalism nonprofit organization Poynter Institute, which claims to be nonpartisan but openly and far more frequently censors right-identified politicians, outlets, and ideas. Facebook uses ICFN to approve censors for its immense platform.

In her role, Susca has certified 19 fact-checking applications from organizations that include the obscure Chinese- and Democrat-funded Lead Stories. Lead Stories has been censoring stories from The Federalist and other non-leftist outlets despite making documented factual errors that boost Democrat-friendly narratives. Susca approved its application for Facebook fact-checker three times in a row.

The Russian Connection

https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/14/times-person-of-the-year-revels-the-wests-stunning-weakness-under-chinas-deadly-threat/

Xi Jinping took a disaster and, through calculated lies and dictatorial cruelty, accomplished what seemed nearly impossible just last year.

Time Magazine’s Person of the Year is an embarrassment. Designed to acknowledge and document men, women and groups who’ve changed the world, historically it never promised to fill readers with warm and fuzzy feelings: Impact didn’t require good intentions, and didn’t necessitate good results.

Over much of its 93-year history, world-changers like Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi, Soong Mei-ling, and Adolf Hitler held the title. Aside from being very different people with different codes and different legacies, these people didn’t win simply by virtue of not being the other guy; and for the lion’s share of their lives, for good or evil they interacted with the world outside the comforts of their own homes.

In modern years, however, winners have moved away from the sometimes uncomfortable toward feel-gooders, like Greta Thunberg, a child whose accomplishments peak at getting adults to applaud her tantrums.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, hardly world-shaping visionaries, fit comfortably into this trend. “Defeating the Minotaur was one thing; finding the way out of the labyrinth is another,” read the cringeworthy prose accompanying Time’s puff piece. “A dark winter has descended, and there will be no rest for the victors.”

So, who should have earned the title this year? Who changed the world in ways that just a short while ago we would have struggled to imagine? There’s only one person, and he isn’t included in runner-ups Donald Trump, Anthony Fauci, or “the movement for racial justice.” He is China’s brutal dictator, Xi Jinping.

Consider the evidence. At the dawn of 2020, Xi had a massive problem on his hands. For the third time in 23 years, China had lost control of a deadly disease, and this time evidence placed its origin in suspiciously close proximity to a secretive Chinese government bio laboratory.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/12/14/hunter_biden_news_should_shame_dismissive_media_outlets_144837.html

Hunter Biden announced Wednesday he is under federal investigation for his financial dealings in foreign countries, including China. While the news sent shockwaves through Washington, D.C., it shouldn’t have been surprising. The announcement confirms many of the allegations of corruption that were leveled against Hunter Biden in the months leading up to the November elections – allegations the media steadfastly refused to cover.

The nation’s largest social media companies went further: They made the shocking decision to actively censor the New York Post’s eye-opening scoop revealing evidence of Joe Biden’s son’s influence peddling that was recovered from an abandoned laptop. Twitter locked the newspaper out of its own account for weeks. Facebook prevented the Post’s story from being widely distributed, even though neither Joe Biden nor his campaign disputed the authenticity of the documents published by the paper.

In retrospect, not only do the documents appear to be authentic, but a Daily Beast report Thursday notes evidence that the Hunter Biden investigation was hiding in plain sight. One of the FBI documents from the laptop published by the Post “included a case number that had the code associated with an ongoing federal money laundering investigation in Delaware, according to several law enforcement officials who reviewed the document. Another document — one with a grand jury subpoena number — appeared to show the initials of two assistant U.S. attorneys linked to the Wilmington, Delaware, office.” Hunter Biden claims he only learned of the  investigation this past week, but these documents suggest otherwise.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/the-disgraceful-hunter-biden-cover-up/?itm_campaign=headline-testing-the-disgraceful-hunter-biden-cover-up&itm

It was a ‘conspiracy’ theory shouted down and stifled by the media establishment. Until it wasn’t.

I t’s now clear that the Hunter Biden story was real, with Hunter himself acknowledging a federal probe into his taxes — one that reportedly began in 2018. Really, it was always clear. Yet, when the New York Post broke the details, virtually the entire journalistic establishment and left-wing punditsphere defamed the newspaper, claiming it was passing on Russian “disinformation” or partisan fabrications.

The political media quickly began pumping out process stories about the alleged discord in the Post’s newsroom and about the problems with the reporting. In so doing, of course, they did practically no reporting on the substantive allegations that Joe Biden’s family had spent years cashing in on his influence. Tech companies, spurred on by these censorious journalists, shut down the account of one of America’s most-read newspapers to inhibit users from reading the story. It was completely unprecedented.

At the time, I argued that the Post (where I contribute to the editorial page) used the same ethical and journalistic standards that the media have employed for decades. But, in truth, it exercised a higher standard of professionalism than most outlets reporting on the Russia collusion hysteria did for three-plus years. It certainly exhibited a higher ethical standard than Jeffrey Goldberg did in his Atlantic piece claiming that Donald Trump had besmirched the American military — which political journalists had no problem sharing as irrefutable and unimpeachable fact.

In October, the New York Times ran a piece headlined, “New York Post Published Hunter Biden Report Amid Newsroom Doubts.” Today, the same Times reports that, “Biden team has rejected some of the claims made in the Post articles, but has not disputed the authenticity of the files upon which they were based.”

https://spectator.org/biden-media-coverage/

Having created his presidency, how will establishment media cover President Biden? With the roles so different and so separated, it is easy to forget that establishment media have been instrumental throughout Biden’s three-decade-long presidential quest. In his first two campaigns, establishment media sank Biden by covering him; in his latest, they saved Biden by not covering him. Now with Biden elected, which role will they assume?

The first role establishment media played in Biden campaigns was aggressively direct.

In contrast to their direct role in his first two presidential campaigns, establishment media’s role in Biden’s third presidential campaign has been indirect at best.

In 1988, during his first campaign, they single-handedly destroyed Biden by revealing a pattern of plagiarism. Initially, revelations showed Biden had lifted portions from a speech by UK Labor politician Neil Kinnock. Then came more: “borrowings” from Hubert Humphrey and Robert Kennedy. Finally, they reported that Biden had failed a Syracuse University law course because he used five pages of a law-review publication without attribution.

In 2007, during his second campaign, establishment media again struck. This time they helped disseminate Biden’s offensively back-handed compliment of Barack Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean a nice-looking guy.” A marginal candidate already, Biden sank further, finally dropping out after receiving only 1 percent of support in the 2008 Iowa caucuses.

In contrast to their direct role in his first two presidential campaigns, establishment media’s role in Biden’s third presidential campaign has been indirect at best. Instead of essentially covering him to death, this time they effectively did not cover him at all.

In the 2020 campaign, establishment media did not force Biden into any mistakes or awkward encounters. When he blundered, they did not pursue. When they could have destroyed him, following disappointing Iowa and New Hampshire finishes, they held back.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/journalists-turn-on-free-expression/

Mainstream journalists have used their access to a massive audience to mislead the public in many ways, but this isn’t a free-speech problem.

In an interview with MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt, The New Yorker’s Steve Coll contends that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s “profound” support of free speech — oh, how I wish that were true — is problematic because “free speech, a principle that we hold sacred, is being weaponized against the principles of journalism.”

Journalism has turned on free speech, the one belief that had been somewhat impervious to the ideological tendencies of most editors and reporters. There’s absolutely nothing in Coll’s comments — nor in Hunt’s begging a question about the alleged corrosive effects of unfettered speech — which demonstrates that either are particularly concerned about the future of free expression, much less that either hold the principle as “sacred.”

The notion that Facebook’s reluctance to limit users is akin to neglecting efforts to “preserve democracy,” as Coll ludicrously suggests, is also another example of how the contemporary usage of “democracy” means little more than “fulfilling the wishes of liberals.”

If you believe Americans are too stupid to hear wrongthink, transgressive ideas, and, yes, fake news, you’re not a fan of the small-l liberal conception of free expression. That’s fine. Those ideas seem to be falling into disfavor with many. But the sanctity of free speech isn’t predicated on making sure people hear the right things, it’s predicated on letting everyone have their say. Because as always, the question becomes who decides what expression is acceptable. I’m not keen on having the fatuous media reporters at CNN or activist “fact-checkers” at the Washington Post adjudicating what is and isn’t permissible for mass consumption.