Berl Falbaum
Veteran Political Journalist/Author
What am I missing?
I am referring to the brouhaha over Elon Musk banning some journalists from Twitter, among them reporters from CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post.
I’ll come right to the conclusion: So what? The journalists may not like that but he has every right to do so. He is not guilty of any wrongdoing, any illegal activity, any libel or any unconstitutional action.
Twitter is a private company which Musk heads. As such, he is free to choose what he will publish on his outlet or what he decides to “ban.”
The media daily make tens of thousands of decisions on what they approve to publish and or want will be “banned.” In the media world it is called “editing.” In my decades in journalism, I have lost count on the number of my articles and letters to editors which never saw the light of day. They were “banned.”
Now, that upset me because subscribers would never have the privilege of reading my pearls of wisdom, but I recognized the media’s inherit right to protect the world from my ramblings.
The Musk controversy is not, to emphasize, a freedom of press issue. The First Amendment prohibits governmental actions not those by private (media) entities or individuals.
Here is a summary of reactions to Musk’s edicts:
----The United Nations said it was “very disturbed.”
---The European Union threatened sanctions.
---The Committee to Protect Journalists was “deeply disturbed.”
---CNN called the action “unjustified and impulsive.”
---Fourth Watch chimed in with, “This is outrageous.”
---New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked Musk to “lay off pro-fascism.” That one took my breath away. Ironically, government demanding publication by a private media institution would be pro-fascist.
Talk about overreaction. If Musk has been arbitrary, he has the right to be arbitrary. If his policy is “vengeful,” he has the right to be that as well. He was also accused of being hypocritical because when he acquired Twitter, he promised Twitter would be the ultimate outlet for a free flow of ideas.
Well, he also has a right to be hypocritical and the right to be erratic, dictatorial, hateful, inconsiderate, inconsistent, impulsive, selfish, mean-spirited, closed-minded, partisan, etc. I think you get the picture.
There was also the charge of “censorship” which, of course, does not apply at all in this case. Censorship, by definition, emanates from governmental authorities banning or prohibiting “speech.”
Just about all complained about not receiving a reason for the ban. I’ll answer on Musk’s behalf: As a private entrepreneur, he is not obligated to explain himself. There is no such constitutional requirement. Need I add, CNN, the Times, The Washington Post nor the rest of the media ever offer explanations for their actions.
Musk, of course, is not the first media “dictator” who has held court in the country. American journalism has a long history of so-called media barons who ruled over their news publishing empires with iron and “banning” fists. Think Hearst, Luce, Pulitzer, McCormick and, more recently, Murdoch and Bloomberg.
Some of the Musk-like publishers not only banned material they found offensive, but also “slanted” stories to reflect their political views.
I was particularly fascinated by the reaction from the New York Times. It called Musk’s banning dictum “questionable.”
I have no idea what that means. That aside, this is the same paper which forced its editorial page director, James Bennett, to resign after the paper published an Op-Ed by Arkansas U.S. Senator Tom Cotton which recommended that then President Trump send in troops to quell rioting that followed the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
The resignation came after the paper’s liberal staffers revolted over the publication of Cotton’s piece. Bottom-line: They believed the piece should have been banned and they turned a deaf ear to Bennett’s defense in which he stated:
“Times Opinion owes it to our readers to show them counter-arguments, particularly those made by people in a position to set policy.”
In addition to condemning Musk’s action as “questionable,” the paper added the ban was “unfortunate.”
So, it’s unfortunate. I consistently come across “unfortunate” decisions made by the media in what they publish. I am confident they make countless “unfortunate” decisions on what they do not print or air.
I am considering sending this piece for publication to The Times and others who protested Musk’s decision. I don’t want to be pessimistic, but I think I will experience “questionable” and “unfortunate” decisions.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/subscriptions
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
