Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

What has been litigated (successfully by the Dems) is whether or not fraud was widespread enough to change the outcome of the election. What May or may not come to light is whether and to what extent social media and mainstream stream media put their thumb on the scale by quashing stories, disallowing certain content and fundraising ability of conservative PACS, etc. even if this is proven to be true (and I believe it will be) you wouldn’t expect those media sources that participated to out themselves and it would be almost impossible to quantify the influence it had.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I think you have to distinguish between "quashing stories, disallowing certain content" and outright lying. You cannot force a media outlet to publish everything; after all, there is freedom of the press, and that includes their decision to not print something. Even "lying by omission" is different than not printing/publishing something at all.

Wouldn't life be a lot easier if people were just nice to each other?

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

I agree you can’t compel a business to print or say what they choose not to but when you pretend to be a news service and people depend on it then I believe you have an obligation to report all stories with significant national implications without bias which by definition is prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person or group compared to another, usually in a way to be considered unfair. Omission and commission can both deceptively influence one. I can’t see any practical difference in your distinguishing lying by omission and not publishing a story or fact as they are both omissions. The intent may be different but neither is available for the reader or viewer.

Additionally, social media is a different story all together, as they too can print, say, edit, cancel whom ever or whatever they want but should immediately lose their immunity to being sued for content as they are no longer the public bulletin boards they were when such protections were granted to them.

btbg

If not for how the FBI impacted what stories were or were not covered I might agree with you, but once the FBI told Twitter and facebook to censor certain stories and they did that is no longer free press.

What Musk has released proves that some content was disallowed and that it was with the help of both democrats in congress and the FBI putting pressure on the social media outlets. Government collusion with the press is anything but freedom of the press. That is propaganda pure and simple.

There is also a huge difference between choosing not to publish stories about Hunter Biden's laptop and claiming that those stories are lies, which is what happened.

As to Direct TV, they aren't standing on principal. Years ago Glenn Beck tried to buy Al Gore's television network. The sale was nixed because of Beck's political views and the network was instead sold to Al Jazira. Now, Direct TV has taken both One America and Newsmax off of their airwaves, in spite of at least Newsmax making money for the company. That is not a stand on principle. That is an attempt to push one narrative over an alternative one.

Some of us have limited options, so it is difficult to fight back and choose another satellite provider. Others have chosen to hit A T&T in the pocket book by going to different carriers.

What I don't understand about your stance on this issue is that you do not seem to be recognizing the danger of censorship whether or not it is government or private sector sponsored. How would you like it if Mush purchased A T&T and took CNN, MSNBC et all off the air and put Newsmax back on? Would you still support that decision? Because unless your answer is yes, then you are wrong about removing Newsmax. If on the other hand you think that would be OK, then at least you are being consistent and that's fine.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I think services — and I use that term with reservation — like Newsmax are a bit too blatant and extreme in their biases. I further hope that most people can tell the difference between factual news, opinion, entertainment and lies. But then, that is only my hope and probably not reality.

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

Your source article does not back up their claim of a 7% loss since AT&T dropped Newsmax with any per share values...so I looked it up.

They are full of crap.

On January 24th the closing price was $19.16 per share. On Friday 2/10 the day before the article was written the closing price was $19.07. So it had lost 9 cents per share which is less than .5% not 7%.

In order for the stock valuation to have lost $10 billion there would have to be 111 billion shares...there are 7.5 billion.

Today the stock closed at $19.26 or 10 cents per share up since they dropped Newmax.

Do you ever check your sources?

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

Including themselves? Because the source article is a whopper.

Truth Seeker Loc: High Mountains of the Western US

Get ROKU you can watch whatever you want.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

I will try.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

The original source was your buddies at Google financial. https://www.google.com/finance/quote/T:NYSE?hl=en
If not they than you better sharpen your pencil and math skills.

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

No...your original source (quoted) was an article by Newsmax which was wrong.

AT&T stock dropped 0.5% from it's level at the time they announced the Newsmax drop. That happened the day before the article was written. Yet Newsmax claimed it had dropped 7%...total fabrication.

Is there no lie you won't defend?