News and Journalism — The Cat’s Out of the Bag. Credibility?
By: Keith Long
Tags: Journalism, Bias, News, Twitter

Jack is a Player

Journalist on Call

Op-Ed by Keith Long

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey

The role of journalism on its foundation of free speech is at a tipping point at the moment. In the private sector, we must remind ourselves, free speech is not a constitutional right. For instance, the barons who own conversational platforms (Twitter-Facebook), as well as the institutional news media (Fox/CNN/NY Times) have established a nice power base that controls the speech and information published (on what is for them) a business investment platform. That will continue for generations to come.

Large media institutions (including Big Tech) are positioned to use the influence of their proprietary information platforms not to create a town square of voices, but to produce outcomes in elections and culture. They are in the business of framing narratives and perspectives on issues that extend beyond culture. These “for-profit” media platforms already seek to be determinative in decisions by the courts, in political speech, and the intersection of religion and the law. Their advocacy only becomes more dispositive because they are operating from a profit-driven business model that is exempt from restraint-of-trade laws (Newspaper Preservation Act), and Big Tech is protected by Section 230.

The institutional news media has free reign to manage public opinion through its “news” reports. That is not by accident, rather it is in the design of its business model. The media has a well-entrenched model of confirmation bias that recycles news consumers as its passive vessels. We are groomed as news consumers to be eager to join a news platform of “news advocacy” on every conceivable issue. We, the audience, are conditioned to seek out our fix of confirmation bias, which of course, is the critical feature of media’s business model. BTW, we viewers generate ad revenue for the media which only feeds its growing influence. The media’s for-profit institutions form alliances with those who hold political power. That means more money and less competition. Surprise, surprise!

The institutional news media has its neat little model that makes huge profits from a captive audience that gets a fix by hearing the political advocacy it agrees with being reported as news. In the event, the country’s divisions grow as Fox and Rush line up against Maggie Haberman of the NY Times, Anderson Cooper of CNN, etc. And, the media reports, always with deep regret, how divided the country has become. Actor James Stewart would be thinking, “It’s a wonderful life” for the for-profit driven institutional media.

As an example. Jack Dorsey censored the NY Post’s reporting on President-elect Biden’s son, Hunter. That was not a mistake. That was Dorsey paying up Twitter’s entrance fee into the halls where political and media power can share “for-profit” agendas. Jack is a player, for sure. He has his calls answered in the Oval Office, anytime he wants. Likewise, favorable new regulation of platforms like Twitter guarantee his company’s financial growth going forward, and a favored position against competitors. Facebook and Twitter use the leverage from political advocacy because their platforms are a commodity. It’s a pretty neat business model that defines political advocacy as “truth” and in the event, corners the market on the equity of our Constitution.

kdlongmany@gmail.com