“Facebook, Twitter Turn to Right-Leaning Groups to Help Referee Political Speech,” The Wall Street Journal, January 9, 2019. Facebook, Twitter, and Google try to find a way to moderate stories with a political element.
Does adding advisors from different ends of the political spectrum help provide or restore credibility when you have been accused of filtering and promoting stories from one end differently than those from the other?
Are we aware of the filters that govern what news and opinions we see and hear? How do we separate the reporting of news from the filtering of news reports to advance a political agenda?
Some of our selections are self-selected, such as what shows we watch and what sources we read. But does it add value to have more opinion added to the mix when we’re looking at the “new” free press? Or is this the marketplace of ideas that is just part of the First Amendment, which protects free speech and freedom of the press? As a part of Governance, should the government establish restrictions or “equal time/prominence” rules to non-traditional publishers who have more than a minimal role in shaping public opinion? How would one draw those lines?
infogovnuggets 