More disinformation from the NYTimes? You betcha! Good Information from the Washington Post? Strange, Yet True!

Yep, yep, yep. It’s Washington Post 1, New York Times 0 on the Vanneman-o-meter, which measures, of course, “TRUTH”!

The matter at hand is Missouri v. Biden, a recent decision by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirming—with the emphasis on “partially”—a wide-ranging (as in “loud mouthed” and, well, “Trumpy”) lower court’s preliminary injunction that would have barred practically every federal agency from communicating its “concerns” about material appearing on big social media platforms like Facebook and the site formerly known as “Twitter”. The appeals court concluded (quite reasonably, in my opinion) that officials in the White House, the Office of the Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FBI had effectively coerced a number of sites into taking down posts that, according to the complaining government officials, contained false or misleading information.

In his article for the Times, Appeals Court Rules White House Overstepped 1st Amendment on Social Media, Steven Lee Myers manages to cram an astounding amount of misinformation, not to mention outright falsehoods, into his piece. Among other things, Steve tells us

Government officials have long argued that they do not have the authority to order posts or entire accounts removed from the platforms, which private companies control. They have worked with the tech giants, however, to take action against illegal or harmful material, especially in cases involving child sexual abuse, human trafficking and other criminal activity.

Well, duh. Of course they don’t have the authority to order posts or entire accounts removed from the platforms. No one is saying that they do. And Steve’s next sentence is even more off topic. The lawsuit brought against the government, and partially endorsed by the court, had nothing to do with “illegal or harmful material, especially in cases involving child sexual abuse, human trafficking and other criminal activity”. Steve is deliberately changing the subject in order to make the government’s position look more “benign”. Hey, we just want to prevent child abuse! You gotta problem widdat?

Steve goes on to say

That [“working with the tech giants “] has also included regular meetings to share information on the Islamic State and other terrorist groups. Many of the cases cited in the legal challenge involved the Covid pandemic, when government officials feared that misinformation and disinformation about vaccines and other treatments hampered efforts to control the spread of the coronavirus, which has killed more than 1.1 million Americans.

Again, the lawsuit has nothing to do with “the Islamic State and other terrorist groups”. Talk about throwing stuff against the wall to see if it sticks. As for the Covid pandemic, to which Steve segues so sharply as to almost break my neck, he persists with what is now a well established “Timesmeme” that “misinformation and disinformation” can be as easily and objectively identified as simple errors in addition and subtraction, when the record clearly shows that what this administration—and every previous one—calls “misinformation and disinformation” can all too often mean “stuff that makes us look bad”.

Steve also tells us

The debate over how far companies can go to limit content online — known as moderation — has become increasingly vehement and polarizing. On one side, government officials have argued that they have a duty to protect public health and national security from false or misleading information. Republicans and others, however, have accused the social media giants of colluding with government officials in violation of First Amendment protections of free speech.

First of all, there is no limit to “how far companies can go to limit content online”. It’s their site. Mark Zuckerberg can bounce me because my posts are a buzzkill, or because studies show that posts by cranky old white men don’t draw advertisers. The New York Times has complete control over what appears on its website, and so does Facebook. They simply have different business models. Furthermore, the “gravamen” of the lawsuit at hand is not that the social media companies violated the First Amendment (which doesn’t apply to them) by “colluding” with government officials, but rather that government officials violated the First Amendment by pressuring the social media not to print stories they didn’t like.

Steve finishes off his misinformation tour de force by acknowledging that it isn’t only Republicans who are applauding the appellate court’s decision. There’s also, you know, Mr. Anti-Vax himself, Robert F. Kennedy, for example. And there might be a couple of others, maybe, but apparently Steve wasn’t able to contact them by press time.

By contrast—by stunning contrast—the WashPost’s writeup, 5th Circuit finds Biden White House, CDC likely violated First Amendment, by Cat Zakrzewski and Joseph Menn, contains exactly nothing about “misinformation and disinformation”,¹ almost as if these were mere buzzwords rather than meaningful categories of thought, saying

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on Friday ruled that the Biden White House, top government health officials and the FBI likely violated the First Amendment by improperly influencing tech companies’ decisions to remove or suppress posts on the coronavirus and elections.

Got that, Steve? “Posts on the coronavirus and elections”! Nothing about terrorism, or sexual abuse of children or human trafficking. Imagine that! Also, nothing about the duty of private companies to comply with the First Amendment, because there is no such duty, and instead a great deal of information about how the three appellate court judges concluded that Biden administration officials (for the most part) constantly pressured social media folks both to delete specific posts and to “modify” their decision-making processes to screen out stuff that the Biden folks didn’t approve of:

The judges detail multiple emails and statements from White House officials that they say show escalating threats and pressure on the social media companies to address covid misinformation. The judges say that the officials “were not shy in their requests,” calling for posts to be removed “ASAP” and appearing “persistent and angry.” The judges detailed a particularly contentious period in July of 2021, which reached a boiling point when President Biden accused Facebook of “killing people.”

Imagine that! A news article about a court decision that actually tells you what the court said, instead of rambling on about sensational yet unrelated topics like sexual child abuse, human trafficking, and terrorism! In a way, it’s almost refreshing!

1. Actually, almost “nothing”. I get a little carried away at times. At one point, Cat and Joe say “misinformation” when they should have said “alleged misinformation”. They aren’t perfect, and neither am I.