The new owner of Twitter, Elon Musk, promised a blockbuster report about Twitter’s role in stifling the Hunter Biden laptop incident last Friday.
And given that many individuals these days get their news via Twitter, that implied a huge news event.
The “news” was then made public. A reporter by the name of Matt Taibbi posted a series of tweets outlining the information he had learned by perusing a large number of Twitter files.
His research revealed, among other things, that the former Twitter owner “made exceptional steps to conceal the (laptop) news, blocking links and putting warnings that it may be “unsafe.” They also prevented its delivery over direct messaging, a feature formerly saved for serious situations like child pornography.
Additionally, according to Taibbi, individuals from “the Biden team” told Twitter staff to delete any information they didn’t like, to which one staff member replied, “managed.”
How the World Reacted to It?
If true, this would imply that at least occasionally, the political team of our present president was involved in removing content from a significant social media platform. That ought to be major news, right? An incline?
Fox News gave the “Twitter Files,” as Musk named them, the headline treatment. And they were described as “jaw-dropping” by the conservative National Forum.
The NY Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, which are scarcely on the same side of the street as didn’t even cover it as of Saturday morning. A snoozefest is what Rolling Stone termed the entire event.
CNN suppressed the item on its website, portraying it as a “debate” amongst Twitter staff about whether to limit the story. The article also cited Taibbi’s tweet saying “there is no proof, that I have seen, of any government participation in the laptop tale,” at one point.
Alternatively put, a molehill.
What are you supposed to consider whenever one prominent media reports the skies are falling and the other behaves as if the weather is perfectly fine? This is the age-old conundrum. It’s easy to locate news. But putting your faith in the news to be objective, non-selective, or not bury stories is a completely different challenge.
Are those hills or mountains? The path to the truth is not a straight one.
How Should You Treat the News or Any Story?
Readers should always believe they’re just getting a portion of the narrative. Due to deadlines, limitations on space, and other factors, it is hard for reporters to accurately capture every aspect of every event. As a result, anything you read or see has been modified. If a journalist chooses to use one quote instead of another. It is an editorial choice when a journalist chooses to use one statement but not others. It is an editorial choice when a publication strips one story from the front page and places another on page 28.
Unless you are there in attendance at the event, there isn’t any such thing as entirely objective and comprehensive news.
If not, choices are constantly made. And how far apart are judgment and prejudice? People ought to be worried about that. Because bias doesn’t just manifest itself in the way a tale is written.
Like trumpeting a story, ignoring one is likewise an editorial decision. Because of this, when you switch between news channels in America, you may believe that you are in two separate nations. You will not, in fact, hear the same sound bites, videos, or headlines.
Conclusion
My recommendation? Read as much as you can from various sources. Take in as many news broadcasts as you can. Apply common sense. Find out who gains from the narrative. And if you’re fortunate, you could find a glimpse of the reality somewhere between the heights and the valleys.
