From Harry to Kamala, blocking the press to control the ‘narrative’

More from:

Andrea Peyser

'Jeopardy!' enters absurd territory with dumbest controversy ever

Aaron Rodgers is the 'Jeopardy!' host winner in my book

Put me on Team Woody — Mia Farrow is full of it

Bruce Springsteen sells out with pablum

Oh, Alec Baldwin, you must know more than you're letting on

Democratic politicians and leftie celebrities (or do I repeat myself?) have taken several gut-punches to press freedoms of late. And I’m afraid one of our basic liberties is taking it on the chin.

Vice President Kamala Harris reportedly keeps lists of journalists and political players who “don’t understand her.’’

Harris and her people typically “dismiss’’ reporters whom the highest-ranking woman in government thinks “don’t fully understand her or appreciate her life experience,’’ according to a profile of Harris published in The Atlantic. She is so intent on cracking down on her critics, she allegedly takes particular issue with the word “cautious’’ being used to describe her. Aides are said to look out for ‘’synonyms’’ including “careful, guarded and hesitant’’ which “don’t go over well.”

The subtext is clear: Those who play by Kamala’s Rules and self-edit accordingly enjoy greater access, potential scoops and favoritism.

This in the same administration that doesn’t allow the president to take spontaneous questions and requires journalists to seek quote approval before publishing.

Meanwhile, in Chicago, Mayor Lori Lightfoot tweeted this week that she’s “prioritizing’’ interviews with reporters of color. Now, several journalists are accusing the mayor of racism, claiming that Lightfoot’s spokeswoman told them the pol will only grant one-on-one interviews to black and Hispanic reporters.

I was tempted to ignore the rantings of Prince Harry, who called the First Amendment “bonkers.” He isn’t American after all, and a nitwit.

But considering the actions of Harris, Lightfoot and others, it’s clear that Harry’s opinion is widely shared among liberal politicians and celebrities. They feel they should be able to control the “narrative,” to publicize their actions or themselves the way they want to — and deplatform any one who objects.

And why wouldn’t they? One of the primary ways we get our news these days is social media, and they see these companies blocking information all the time. You can post your own messages to Twitter, Facebook or Instagram, then get those services to delete the accounts of those who run afoul of you.

Media companies that don’t play ball with this find themselves labeled racist, sexist, or shut out. Or even censored.

Well, these are private companies you say. And these politicians and celebrities are allowed to choose with whom they speak. But if the press doesn’t call out the hypocrisy, if they don’t note that this is setting up an echo chamber, then the First Amendment doesn’t need repealing. It’s already been bypassed.

Share this article:

Source: Read Full Article