3 ms·

It seems another issue is simply the politicization of American media in general which Wikipedia relies on by design. Even if Wikipedia's editors were totally n

by at-w 4y ago

It seems another issue is simply the politicization of American media in general which Wikipedia relies on by design. Even if Wikipedia's editors were totally neutral, their reliance on mainstream media coverage to dictate what is worth covering in an article and what isn't ends up mirroring what American mainstream media sources cover (and don't cover). Even in 1971, when the partisan divide had much more crossover than it does today, just 25% of journalists identified as Republicans. By 2014, that number was 7% according to the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/ju...). As the Post's Cillizza points out, that number is for all journalists in the US, and is likely much lower in major media outlets in urban centres that are already often 80%+ Democratic voting in the broader population. With further partisan polarization and the closure of local news outlets, it's likely that percentage is negligible in the major, invariably big-city based outlets used as sources on Wikipedia. Whatever you think of Biden, the unanimous blackballing of the Hunter Biden laptop story as "Russian propaganda" outside of explicitly right-wing news sources, including banning it being sent over private message on the two largest communication platforms on earth, is a pretty astounding example of how far that's gone. Anyone who wasn't being deliberately obtuse that looked at the New York Post's reporting could see it was likely real. Seeing journalists ignore the story at best and widely cheer on censorship of stories based on their political implications is a massive deviation from the premise of a media generally willing to cover all important stories that Wikipedia is built around.

jjeaff 4y ago
I don't think the Hunter Biden laptop issue was so egregious. I believe it was only suppressed for maybe 48 hrs or less on the major platforms. Enough time to get somewhat of a handle on something that very much looked like it could be Russian propaganda and coming from Rudy Giuliani via a tabloid rag (not a single one of those 3 have a shred of credibility or dignity left). Especially considering that the FBI had warned the platforms of possible Russian disinformation in the coming weeks. The Hunter laptop still looks rather suspiciously like part of a Russian campaign the same way the hacked DNC emails were likely part of a Russian campaign. Several compromising photos seem to be taken from the laptop camera (does anyone actually take photos that way?) as if the laptop was perhaps compromised by hackers. Also, several photos appear to be of Hunter completely asleep or unconscious. Seems like a weird thing to be taken and end up on your laptop.
- at-w 4y ago
  According to Zuckerberg himself the story was censored for a week (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532). Meanwhile, Twitter banned any sharing of the article and the entire New York Post's account for 16 days. The US anti-war movement was explicitly, objectively supported by the Soviets at a time when they were a likely nuclear threat to the United States and the rest of the Western world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_movement#:~:text=Russian%20GRU%20defector%20Stanislav%20Lunev,the%20VietCong%2C%20although%20he%20does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_...). That doesn't mean it's acceptable to go and ban anti-war rallies, or rallies that "look like" them and claim it's okay because you only did so for a few weeks so it's all fine. Regardless, the issue here is less about partisan social media censorship and more to do with journalists, who Wikipedia relies on to provide factual reporting of all significant news, showing how readily they would support censorship and ignoring a story based on its political impact.
  - jjeaff 4y ago
    It should also be noted that the NY Post was one of several media outlets the hard drive data was pitched to by Giuliani. They were offered printouts of select data and no access to a clone of the hard drive in question or the laptop itself. The NY Post was the only outlet willing to take the bait with those restrictions, and I don't blame them. I'll grant you that many stories never receive the type of scrutiny that this story did by social media companies, but given the factors surrounding it, I don't necessarily fault the decision. I also recently learned that the computer shop owner that ended up with the laptop is legally blind. Seems like a convenient place to drop off a stolen and possibly altered laptop.

by at-w 4y ago

jjeaff 4y ago

I don't think the Hunter Biden laptop issue was so egregious. I believe it was only suppressed for maybe 48 hrs or less on the major platforms. Enough time to get somewhat of a handle on something that very much looked like it could be Russian propaganda and coming from Rudy Giuliani via a tabloid rag (not a single one of those 3 have a shred of credibility or dignity left). Especially considering that the FBI had warned the platforms of possible Russian disinformation in the coming weeks. The Hunter laptop still looks rather suspiciously like part of a Russian campaign the same way the hacked DNC emails were likely part of a Russian campaign. Several compromising photos seem to be taken from the laptop camera (does anyone actually take photos that way?) as if the laptop was perhaps compromised by hackers. Also, several photos appear to be of Hunter completely asleep or unconscious. Seems like a weird thing to be taken and end up on your laptop.

at-w 4y ago
According to Zuckerberg himself the story was censored for a week (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532). Meanwhile, Twitter banned any sharing of the article and the entire New York Post's account for 16 days. The US anti-war movement was explicitly, objectively supported by the Soviets at a time when they were a likely nuclear threat to the United States and the rest of the Western world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_movement#:~:text=Russian%20GRU%20defector%20Stanislav%20Lunev,the%20VietCong%2C%20although%20he%20does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_...). That doesn't mean it's acceptable to go and ban anti-war rallies, or rallies that "look like" them and claim it's okay because you only did so for a few weeks so it's all fine. Regardless, the issue here is less about partisan social media censorship and more to do with journalists, who Wikipedia relies on to provide factual reporting of all significant news, showing how readily they would support censorship and ignoring a story based on its political impact.
- jjeaff 4y ago
  It should also be noted that the NY Post was one of several media outlets the hard drive data was pitched to by Giuliani. They were offered printouts of select data and no access to a clone of the hard drive in question or the laptop itself. The NY Post was the only outlet willing to take the bait with those restrictions, and I don't blame them. I'll grant you that many stories never receive the type of scrutiny that this story did by social media companies, but given the factors surrounding it, I don't necessarily fault the decision. I also recently learned that the computer shop owner that ended up with the laptop is legally blind. Seems like a convenient place to drop off a stolen and possibly altered laptop.