It's so bizarre that journalism and governments have decided that we're allowed to publish dozens or hundreds of articles and editorials rabidly supporting some

It's so bizarre that journalism and governments have decided that we're allowed to publish dozens or hundreds of articles and editorials rabidly supporting some official thesis, but articles opposing or even questioning that same thesis should at best be censored through official or unofficial means, and at worst lead to spurious criminal investigations and charges. Governments and justice systems are selectively giving access to journalists who are incurious scribes, and the rest are relegated to the periphery and under constant attack. I think it started when the US started stretching legislation it had created regarding "material support for terrorism" into "clearly expressed support for terrorism," by absurdly playing on the meaning of the word "support." e.g. if I support your kid by cheering for her at her basketball game, it doesn't mean I can claim your kid as a dependent on my taxes. Taking the side, or even considering the arguments, of somebody officially accused either by the government or some institution, has become something like "accessory after the fact" in a lot of people's minds. Accusations have become viral. Acknowledging the defense has become dangerous for journalists, unless the subject is part of a disagreement between institutions of roughly equal power and influence. We're heading towards a West that officially licenses (and employs) journalists, and prosecutes people for performing journalism without a license. "Disinformation" is when you're told a lie about an official story, "Malinformation" is when you're told the truth about an official story by a journalist who is evil.