From the very first White House press conference held by President Joe Biden, many noticed that the second question was granted to”PBS NewsHour” correspondent Yamiche Alcindor that has been previously criticized for breathtaking reports of Biden and what she called”the heros” of his cabinet. Alcindor raised the dilemma of the crisis at the boundary with a massive increase in unaccompanied minors. However, she framed her question as to whether Biden can solve the”tension” of having folks come to the United States because he is such a”moral” and”respectable” person. 1 critic however objected that the question was unfair to Biden and according to disinformation. This course was Jennifer Rubin, that has been repeatedly criticized because of fictitious postings from congressional hearings to court decisions to even Shakespeare. She even once attacked me for a concept I didn’t agree with at a column I didn’t write.
Biden was contested for his statistical claims as well as NBC News discovered that he was incorrect.
Alcindor prefaced her question by giving Biden’s stated defense and then emphasizing the appeal of the moral character as the Reason parents are”trusting” him along with their kids:
“You’ve mentioned over and over again which immigrants shouldn’t come to the nation right now… This message is not being received/ Instead, the understanding of you who got you elected — because a moral, good guy — is why a lot of immigrants are now coming into the nation and are trusting you with unaccompanied minors. How can you resolve that anxiety and just how are you picking which households can remain and which ones can go… and is there a timeline for if we will not be seeing these overcrowded facilities operate by CBP when it has to do with unaccompanied minors?”
For critics, the question (and gentle treatment of Biden by the press ) was a continuation of the cushion of protection provided by the media. Indeed, prior to the press conference, both Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan and Rubin openly discouraged strangers from being overly tough on Biden in the press conference.
Even Alcindor’s fawning, convoluted question was a lot for Rubin who whined that”Yamiche gets the announcement unproven that his words put off the surge. That is factually erroneous.” The issue for Rubin is that Alcindor made any link at all between Biden and also the explosion. Rubin apparently believes that the media should have refused to make such a link — unless it was to declare that such connections are factually erroneous.
That directed Alcindor to fire that Rubin was dismissing widespread reporting that households are coming due to Biden:”Maybe you have not interviewed migrants & requested this Q, but reporting bears out what I mentioned, which is that some migrants are coming because of the understanding that Pres[ident] Biden is more humane & is allowing unaccompanied minors to remain. So unfortunately, you are factually erroneous.” (In addition, many immigrants are wearing teeshirt using Biden’s name on it along with also the Mexican President also stated that Biden is the draw for its explosion ).
My interest in the squabble is the way that it catches the apparently endless flexibility of the conditions”misinformation” and”disinformation.” Rubin considers that Alcindor was dispersing false informationthat the basis for calls for increased censorship online. She fired the Alcindor needs to read the information:”Maybe you have not interviewed migrants & requested this Q, however reporting conveys what I mentioned, which is that a few migrants are coming because of the understanding that Pres[ident] Biden is more humane & is permitting unaccompanied minors to remain. So unfortunately, you are factually erroneous.”
The latest hearing followed exactly the same pattern, as was obvious in the prior hearing where I testified.Prior hearings have demonstrated that censorship is presently a touchstone for Democratic politicians. This was evident in the Senate hearing using the Big Tech CEOs. As opposed to addressing the hazards of such countless information reports, Senator Chris Coons pressed Dorsey to enlarge the classes of censored stuff to stop people from sharing any perspectives that he considers”climate denialism.” Similarly, Senator Richard Blumenthal seemed to take precisely the opposite significance from Twitter, confessing that it was wrong to censor the Biden narrative. Blumenthal said that he was”concerned that both your companies are, in fact, backsliding or retrenching, which you are neglecting to take actions against dangerous disinformation.” Accordingly, he wanted an Solution to This question:
“Can you commit to exactly the same sort of robust content alteration playbook in this coming election, such as fact checking, tagging, reducing the spread of corruption, along with other steps, for politicians from the runoff elections beforehand?”
“Robust content alteration” now comprises”disinformation and misinformation” to a wide variety of topics from climate change to election fraud into immigration to gender issues.
The difference is that traffic to announcements by figures such as Alcindor are inclined to be confined to Twitter while some are exposed to cancelling campaigns. Such”friendly fire” events nevertheless show the subjectivity of such labelings within our cancel culture.