Twitter's decision to censor the trending #WhichHillary hashtag is the latest example of the corporate media's collusion with Hillary Clinton
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
Hillary Clinton has used every dirty trick in the book in order to steal votes and delegates from Bernie Sanders. But this is just the tip of the soulless, power-hungry, blood-drenched iceberg that is Hillary Clinton (Okay, we understand we're stretching our imagery here, but work with us).
The latest Hillary scandal reveals the rot in our political system: The corporate media has chosen its candidate, and it will do everything it can to ensure she is victorious.
First, some background:
Black Lives Matter activist Ashley Williams interrupted Hillary Clinton on Wednesday night at a lavish private fundraiser in South Carolina. The young woman accused the presidential candidate of hypocrisy for supporting “tough on crime” laws that led to mass incarceration of black Americans.
During the confrontation, Ms. Williams held a sign that asked "#WhichHillary?". The rhetorical Twitter-question immediately went viral:
On Thursday morning, the tag #WhichHillary began trending on Twitter, as thousands of people criticized Clinton for constantly shifting positions and for what they see as her hypocrisy.
By 1:30 p.m. EST, there were approximately 100,000 tweets with the hashtag.
Considering Clinton's cozy relationship with Twitter's CEO, and also the fact that the embarrassing viral hashtag was spreading across the internet on the eve of a key primary, something had to be done. You already know what happened:
Twitter suspended activist account @GuerrillaDems [Ashley Williams, creator of the #WhichHillary hashtag], at the same time that its massively popular hashtags #WhichHillary & #WhichHillaryCensored were suddenly absent from many users’ trending lists. Twitter now says that the suspension of @GuerrillaDems was a mistake.
However, it is a fact that this past Sunday, Clinton held a political event headlined by Twitter CEO Omid Kordestani.
Twitter's decision makes it pretty clear: When viral content threatens powerful interests, the American people are reduced to the political freedoms enjoyed by the likes of Turkey or Egypt.
And this is hardly the first incident revealing Hillary's collusion with the media.
In a recently released e-mail that has gone entirely ignored by the mainstream media, a Clinton aide writes to Hillary about the "questions and concerns" that they "planted" with 60 Minutes for its exclusive interview with Julian Assange. You can't make this stuff up. Read it for yourself:
Yes, you read correctly: CBS took orders from Hillary Clinton.
And if you think more "progressive" media is any better, you are terribly mistaken. Gawker's rather blunt article, "This is How Hillary Clinton Gets the Coverage She Wants", explains:
Hillary Clinton’s supporters often argue that mainstream political reporters are incapable of covering her positively—or even fairly. While it may be true that the political press doesn’t always write exactly what Clinton would like, emails recently obtained by Gawker offer a case study in how her prodigious and sophisticated press operation manipulates reporters into amplifying her desired message—in this case, down to the very word that The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder used to describe an important policy speech.
The emails in question, which were exchanged by Ambinder, then serving as The Atlantic’s politics editor, and Philippe Reines, Clinton’s notoriously combative spokesman and consigliere, turned up thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request we filed in 2012 (and which we are currently suing the State Department over). The same request previously revealed that Politico’s chief White House correspondent, Mike Allen, promised to deliver positive coverage of Chelsea Clinton, and, in a separate exchange, permitted Reines to ghost-write an item about the State Department for Politico’s Playbook newsletter. Ambinder’s emails with Reines demonstrate the same kind of transactional reporting, albeit to a much more legible degree: In them, you can see Reines “blackmailing” Ambinder into describing a Clinton speech as “muscular” in exchange for early access to the transcript. In other words, Ambinder outsourced his editorial judgment about the speech to a member of Clinton’s own staff.
A nice visualization of how "the news" is made:
We could go on, but we think you get the idea: Our so-called "free press" isn't so free.
America has some incredible stenographers and corrupt CEOs, though.
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider. It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider. Licensed Creative Commons