The Washington Post followed a familiar scheme when it comes to the incessant media gaslighting on the existence of censorship of conservatives: First, deny it exists. Second, admit it exists, but excuse it away by asserting that such censorship is justifiable.
The Post released an eye-popping Oct. 3 story that reeked of absurdity. “Why conservatives get suspended more than liberals on social media,” read the irony-laced headline based on a new so-called study published by Nature. The leftist rag attempted to play gotcha with Sen. J.D. Vance’s (R-OH) comments during the vice presidential debate, when he suggested that censorship was the “much bigger threat to democracy.” In the process, The Post committed peak, double-talking hypocrisy of the first degree by admitting that censorship of “conservatives” was real after spending column inches in years past pretending that it wasn’t.
The Post was trapped in the first stage of denial for a considerable period. A 2021 story lectured readers how “[c]onservative politicians and pundits upped their unsubstantiated accusations that tech companies are censoring their speech.” In 2020, The Post referred to former President Donald Trump and the right’s claims of censorship by social media platforms as “unproven.” In 2019, The Post was adamant that the idea of “conservatives” being censored by platforms such as Google and Facebook because of explicit left-wing bias doesn’t comport with evidence: “But these charges come in the face of considerable evidence that conservative news outlets outperform others on social media.”
Now, the newspaper has done a complete 180-degree turnaround, but the new schtick is trying to sell censorship of the right as a reasonable thing: “[A new study] finds that conservative accounts may be more often penalized because they post more misinformation.” Then, in an almost comical butchering of logic, the 2024 Post said that Big Tech censoring “conservatives” more than liberals still doesn’t “mean content moderation is biased.” No, you didn’t misread that.
The kicker is that the journal for which The Post is relying on for its argument isn’t exactly politically neutral. In fact, Nature openly endorsed then-candidate Joe Biden for president in 2020, who would then go on to lead one of the most aggressive dystopian censorship enterprises ever witnessed in American politics. The journal even later admitted in 2023 that “Political endorsements can affect scientific credibility.” Go figure.
The Post also attempted to castigate the right for posting what it claimed were “debunked” stories. “The Nature paper is not the first to find that conservatives are more likely to share stories that have been debunked, or that originate from fake news sites or other sources deemed ‘low-quality.’”
Perhaps when The Post wrote “debunked” it meant stories like the Hunter Biden laptop bombshell or the credible theory that the COVID-19 virus could have originated from a laboratory in Wuhan, China?
The Post further obfuscated by citing the ramblings of a random computer science professor to argue that “extreme partisans on both the right and the left share more information from low-credibility sources than moderates, but that the phenomenon is much more pronounced on the right than the left.”
What a joke.
Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
