Congressman Cites Western Journal as Example of Facebook Censoring Conservative Sites
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Arizona Republican Rep. Andy Biggs cited The Western Journal during an interview on Fox News on Wednesday as an example of Facebook continuing to censor conservative sites.
On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee held its second hearing on alleged bias by social media companies against conservative content.
“America’s Newsroom” host Sandra Smith asked Biggs, who is a member of the committee, “In your view, is there censorship of conservatives when it comes to these social media companies?”
“I think there is and I think there is ample evidence,” Biggs replied. “I think of someplace like Western Journal that was growing month over month for quite some time, and the algorithms changed and then all of the sudden, the flow of visitor traffic is put to nothing.”
The congressman also pointed to Twitter’s decision last October to block a pro-life ad by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., labeling it “inflammatory” and “negative,” as reported by the Washington Examiner . Facing public pressure, Twitter reversed the decision a few days later, according to LifeSite News .
TRENDING: After Wave of Migrants, Canada Appoints Border Security Minister
h following the algorithm change — CNN was on top, followed by NBC. Fox News remained the only conservative site in the top 10, with The Times, the Huffington Post, BBC, the U.K. Daily Mail, The Washington Post, Yahoo, and the U.K. Guardian filling out the other slots, according to Newswhip .
Do you think Facebook continues to suppress conservative sites?
Meanwhile, The Western Journal had dropped back to No. 22, four spots behind Buzzfeed, the infamous purveyor of the unverified so-called Trump dossier.
A statement by Campbell Brown, a former anchor on NBC and CNN who now leads Facebook’s news partnerships team, perhaps explained the reordering of publishers.
Brown told attendees at a technology and publishing conference in February that Facebook would be prioritizing news publishers on the platform based based on the social media company’s “point of view,” according to Recode .
“This is not us stepping back from news,” she said. “This is us changing our relationship with publishers and emphasizing something that Facebook has never done before: It’s having a point of view, and it’s leaning into quality news. … We are, for the first time in the history of Facebook, taking a step to try to define what ‘quality news’ looks like and give that a boost.”
An original study by The Western Journal — which was cited by House Minority Whip Steve Scalise during the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in April — documented the change in reach for various news outlets based on their ideological bent.
RELATED: Report: Feinstein Failed To Disclose Husband’s $100k Facebook Stock Before Zuckerberg Hearing
The findings were unequivocal: The left-of-center sites saw a 2 percent increase in traffic, while conservative sites witnessed a 14 percent decrease.
Scalise, a former computer programmer, described the “16-point disparity” as “concerning,” and asked Zuckerberg if his company was seeking to lower the reach of conservative sites by its algorithm change.
In his response, the Facebook head claimed there is “absolutely no directive in any of the changes that we make to have a bias in anything that we do. To the contrary, our goal is to be a platform for all ideas.”
The engagement numbers for conservative sites have improved somewhat since the April hearing, with Fox News back on top in June, according to Newswhip , though CNN has retained its heightened position of No. 2.
The Western Journal crept back up from No. 22 in March, to No. 15. Besides Fox, only one other conservative site, The Daily Wire, is in the top 10 of Facebook’s most engaged pages, coming in at No. 9.
During Tuesday’s Judiciary Committee hearing, Monika Bickert, Facebook’s vice president of global policy management, acknowledged the social media giant made at least one mistake with regard to the treatment of conservative views by suppressing the page of Lynnette “Diamond” Hardaway and Rochelle “Silk” Richardson.
The pro-Trump African-American duo had received a message from Facebook just days before April’s hearing informing them they had been flagged as “unsafe to the community.”
Multiple lawmakers grilled Zuckerberg about the determination, which he stated was an error that was being addressed.
Bickert said in her opening statement , “We badly mishandled our communications with (Diamond and Silk) and since then we’ve worked to improve our relationship.”
“We appreciate the perspective that they add to our platform,” she further stated.
Nonetheless, Diamond and Silk informed “Fox & Friends First” on Tuesday before the hearing that they were still being censored by Facebook.
On Wednesday, Biggs told Smith that public pressure, including the Judiciary Committee hearing, remains the best means of addressing social media companies’ bias.
“What we’re doing is the right approach,” the congressman said. “Because as we shine the light of day on this, we do see the social media companies…respond because their constituency includes…conservatives.”
He added, “We have to keep putting pressure on it this way, because the other way way is to do it is the liberal way, which would be to regulate them. That’s an anathema to conservatives as well.”
Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources.
Tags
Who is online
100 visitors
FB filters out fake news, disregarding whether it's created by the Russian military or their witless alt-right media collaborators in America.
FB filters out what it calls fake news, when it should do nothing to promote or filter out any news source since they are not actually reporters or have the means to verify any news report as fake or real. If a site describes itself as "Satire" as per the Babylon Bee, the Onion, and a couple of other sites; then it should be labelled as satire and humor; but that is as far as it should go.
The fact that they put CNN at the top of their news list when that network can't get 800,000 people to watch their network says it all. Facebook is like a virtual airport waiting lounge.
FB is privately owned, they are under no obligation to promote anything they don't wish to promote. Simple as that.
...
One could make the exact same argument against infowars, the daily caller and fox news, "It's unfair that they don't promote more liberal web sites!!!!!!!!!!"
A baker doesn't have to make a cake for a gay couple, so I don't see why FB shouldn't be able to show bias towards conservatives.
I suspect Facebook banned " The Western Journal " and other sites owned by Liftable Media due to their spreading of anti-Muslim hate propaganda.
What that means is that HA is admitting that these hate groups represent conservative values and are typical of conservative websites.
Funny how when the facts arrive the conservative participation drops dramatically.
The strategy is to shut down and silence opposing views completely and brainwash the public so I doubt you are going to get many on the left that will have any problem at all with this.
No, the left doesn't mind if you have or want to talk about things that are considered coming from the right edge of the earth, it'd just be nice if you came with a volume control so that every site doesn't have to be neck-deep in those opinions 24/7
I find it both sad and rather hilarious how the conservatives just fought for the right for their clinics not to be forced to post notices notifying women of their right to an abortion, but seem to want to force Facebook to post their conservative notices.
If Facebook was headed by a religious conservative who was blocking liberal websites and posts they would be rallying around Facebook defending its right to post only pro-conservative content, but when the shoe is on the other foot they all scream and complain about 1st amendment rights and other irrelevant excuses for why they think a private company shouldn't be allowed to operate the way it wants. The hypocrisy of the conservative right truly knows no bounds.
This article is hilarious. Facebook Google YouTube or whatever social media site you prefer are privately owned and as such can employ whatever standards, rules or algorithms they see fit. If folks don't like that they can stop the pity party and start their own social media venture. Whatever happened to that idea for a conservative alternative to Facebook I was hearing about?
2facebook?
Yeah, one was called Reaganbook and another one was Conservapedia. I guess they were both flops tho.
Conservapedia is an alternate reality attempt to counteract Wikipedia. It fails to rise to the level of well-written satire for people who are not devotees of the American Thinker and Alex Jones.
Their entries on evolution and atheism are hilarious.