Tuesday on FNC’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” host Tucker Carlson highlighted an NYU study that appeared in Tuesday’s edition of the New York Daily News claiming to debunk the notion that conservatives are censored by Big Tech.
However, upon closer examination, Carlson revealed the financiers of the study had Big Tech connections.
Carlson argued such a study was intended to pushback against complaints of censorship.
Transcript as follows:
CARLSON: We’ve got an admission for you. For more than four years, we’ve been telling you almost every week that the biggest threat to your basic freedoms in America is not actually the Federal government. We thought that for a long time, the Federal government is infuriating. It can be stupid and dangerous, obviously. But at least in the case of the government, you theoretically have some control over its behavior since it’s a democracy.
In this moment, right now, the bigger threat to your family turned out to be huge publicly held corporations, particularly the tech monopolies. Why? Because you have zero control over their behavior. They truly aren’t interested in what you think. And yet, they have enormous control over your life and you should be worried about that. You probably already are worried about it.
Here is the correction we want to make. We were wrong. Rest easy, America. We’ve got happy news for you tonight. Good tidings from our friends in the academic research community.
On Monday, a pair of researchers from New York University in New York City released what they described as a study of social media and censorship and they didn’t hide their conclusions in footnotes. They got right to it in the title.
This new paper is called quote, “False Accusation: The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives.” It’s quite a literal study.
So it turns out what we’ve been telling you for years isn’t true. It’s merely an unfounded claim. There’s no truth to it. That’s what they concluded. It’s all there in the paper. We read it.
On Page 16, we learned that yes, quote, “Conservatives frequently point to Twitter’s practice of suspending or permanently banning account holders as evidence of bias against the right.” And that is true, they never stopped whining those conservatives. Happily, the study concludes, however, “Facts don’t support this claim. Conservatives do get suspended or banned for violating Twitter’s rules against such things as harassment, hateful conduct, or in Trump’s case, glorifying violence. But (this is the good news) liberals are excluded in this fashion as well.”
So it happens to everyone and that should reassure you.
Have we got some numbers on that, NYU? Well, no, actually, we can’t.
In the words of the, quote, “study,” pinning down precise proportions on censorship is impossible because Twitter doesn’t release sufficient data. Are you following the reasoning here? Their conclusion? Twitter is not biased, and we can be certain it’s not biased because Twitter refuses to release data on who it bans. Case Closed.
But wait a second, you might object? What about all those people I see on this show all the time, talking about how Twitter shut them down for having unauthorized political opinions? We should tell you, the authors did assess that, they are researchers, that’s their job and they came to this conclusion.
All of those people who are banned, every one of them — victims of a mistake. As they noted on Page 17 of the study, quote, “Twitter sometimes makes mistakes.” If that sounds familiar, it’s because that is also Twitter’s explanation for censorship, almost every single time.
Do supporters of the Joe Biden administration get banned the same way by mistake? We can’t tell you that because Twitter won’t give up the numbers. What we do know from the staff at NYU is that shutting down The New York Post’s entire Twitter account right before the election because the newspaper printed stories that were unflattering to the Biden family was not censorship. Oh, no, no, no.
According to NYU, shutting down a newspaper’s account for its political views during a presidential election is not censorship, it is instead — and we are quoting now — “reasonable.”
Why is it reasonable? Well, because presumably, unlike, say, The Pentagon Papers, or virtually every scoop The New York Times has ever published, The New York Post used information that was not publicly available in its stories about Hunter Biden, and that’s totally wrong and it should be censored, which is not actually censorship. It’s just commonsense. It’s reasonable.
We didn’t know any of this, but of course, we’re not professional researchers at NYU. No one else in the media seems skeptical about it at all. They seemed grateful for the study. The Washington Post promoted its findings on Monday. The headline for The New York Daily News, which we should tell you is a direct competitor to The New York Post, gives you a flavor of the reaction from the guardians of the First Amendment.
Here was that headline on that paper, quote: “Big Tech doesn’t censor conservatives: A careful review of evidence shows that’s fake news.” Of course, it’s fake news and Twitter was eager to make sure that you saw how fake it was.
We just got an email from a Twitter spokesman saying this. Study attached, of course, quote, “I wanted to be sure you saw a report out today from the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. It found there is no evidence to support claims of anti-conservative censorship on social media and that these claims are a form of disinformation.”
Whoa. Talk about upping the ante. Are you following this?
There is no censorship from the tech monopolies. None. NYU has proven that.
But if you persist in complaining about this censorship, which does not exist, you may be spreading disinformation. And keep in mind that just the other day, the Governor of Illinois, JB Pritzker announced that he was sending troops to Washington to fight disinformation. Armed soldiers, men with guns, they are fighting disinformation.
You want to be part of that? I don’t think so? Be careful. That’s what the study concludes. Be careful how.
Wow. It almost reads like a press release from Silicon Valley. Why is that? Because it is.
This so-called academic study was in fact paid for by Big Tech. How shocked are you?
It was funded by a man called Craig Newmark. Newmark is one of the many Silicon Valley billionaires who paid for the Joe Biden for President Campaign. Now, he is paying for this.
One of the authors of the so-called academic study is a man called Paul Barrett. Craig Newmark is really Paul Barrett’s Medici, his patron. In September, Barrett released another study on why we should be very nice to Big Tech, as well as deeply respectful and always obedient. That study was also funded by Craig Newmark, as well as by George Soros.
Are you following how this works? Is it becoming clear?
In 2021, billionaires fund their own studies. And in return for that investment, they get the conclusions they have paid for and the rest of us get to obey those conclusions. That’s called science, ladies and gentlemen. And suddenly, it’s everywhere: billionaires in charge.
Ask yourself just for example, you could pick a lot of examples, but here’s one: who has more influence over our national COVID policy? Physicians who treat COVID patients in hospitals every day? Scientists who work to find an effective treatment for the virus or Bill Gates — who is not a physician or a researcher, but is worth more than $100 billion?
Who has more influence? Oh, come on now. Bill Gates leads the way on COVID. He funds the most studies. Those are the rules now.
That’s why billionaire hedge fund manager, George Soros now gets to decide how our laws are enforced. It’s why his fellow billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Styer gets to determine America’s response to climate change. It’s why Jeff Bezos who sells brightly colored garbage from China for a living gets to tell Congress what to do from the editorial page of their hometown newspaper, “The Washington Post.”
Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world, so they have to listen. That’s a lot of power. And it was only a matter of time before the people who wield that power decided they should control democracy itself. So they’re trying.
In the last election, 36-year-old billionaire, Mark Zuckerberg spent at least $350 million to influence who in America would vote and whose votes would be counted.
At the same time, Facebook, his company, decided who can share certain political opinions online. We all watch this happen. And in the end, of course, those efforts had a great effect. You saw the effect.
Facebook was pleased by that effect. Facebook has now decided to get more deeply involved in our elections, beginning with a vigorous defense of its close ally, Gavin Newsom of California.
Now voters in California are very unhappy with Gavin Newsom, read the polls, and there’s a reason. After centuries of affluence, the State of California is collapsing and many Californians are fleeing. They have no choice. They’re going to Nevada, Idaho, Texas, you name it. They’re leaving.
Facebook isn’t bothered by that, of course not. They’re insulated from it. Facebook just wants to keep Gavin Newsom in charge of the state. Why wouldn’t they? He is their friend.
So the company recently announced it is banning ads for the effort to recall Gavin Newsom from office. Voters might not like Gavin Newsom, but Facebook likes Gavin Newsom and that’s what matters. And you can see why they like Gavin Newsom, no governor in the country is more pro billionaire than Gavin Newsom is. No one is even close, and it is lifelong, this affection.
Gavin Newsom grew up a protegee of the Getty family. The Getty family funded Newsom’s business, his wine shop, his home, they even paid for his first wedding reception. Get some self-respect, Gavin Newsom. But no.
Now that Gavin Newsom is in trouble, the richest people in the country are fighting to keep him in office. Watch this astounding clip from a comedy show the other night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL MAHER, TV SHOW HOST: We’re about to have a recall in this state again. Don’t do it. Don’t do it.
I have my frustrations with California. I’ve certainly been not shy about voicing it on this show. But Gavin Newsom, he is a smart guy. He is a good guy.
I would love to talk to him in a room and convince him of a few things but he is — please, don’t do this. It’s stupid.
VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It is QAnon conspiracy to take over the state. That’s all it is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Oh, a QAnon conspiracy. That was Van Jones, by the way, he works over at CNN He’s a populist. He cares about the little guy, the people.
But when the people of California decided they would like different leadership and try to use democratic means to get different leadership through a referendum, oh no, it’s QAnon. It’s a conspiracy. We must put it down in the name of democracy.
That’s our so-called creative class defending entrenched power on behalf of billionaires.
Now, you’d think someone somewhere would push back against this. It’s everywhere. It’s so obvious, but no one in the Democratic Party dares to do that.
The last one who tried — just being honest here — was Bernie Sanders and look what happened to him. Whenever you think of Sanders, we never thought much of him, but for the crime of criticizing billionaires, Sanders went out denounced by CNN as a sexist Russian operative.
Now, just the other day, Sanders has been dismissed in the pages of what you would think would be a friendly news outlet, “The San Francisco Chronicle,” no. According to that paper, Sanders is someone who quote, ” … manifests privilege, white privilege, male privilege and class privilege.” Yes, he’s a bigot. Take that billionaire criticizer, Bernie Sanders.
Honestly, it’s hard to feel too sorry for Sanders right now. He knew what was happening. He understood perfectly well. He didn’t know this, if nothing else, Sanders knew the real divide in this country isn’t race, it’s not sex; the real divide is class, and Bernie Sanders used to say that out loud.
But in the end, he was too much of a coward to criticize identity politics. It was ascendant. He wanted to ride the wave, so we played along. Big mistake. Now, inevitably, he has been denounced as privileged.
Of course, that was going to happen. What’s so interesting, and here’s what you should meditate on, who is not being denounced as privileged? Who has white privilege and who doesn’t have white privilege?
Now, we know that beat cops who risk their lives for 60 grand a year have white privilege, a ton of it. We know that firemen have white privilege, along with construction workers and roofers and Uber drivers, the guys who hang drywall, anyone who doesn’t take Nancy Pelosi seriously has white privilege.
But what about Bill Gates? Does he have white privilege? When was the last time someone told you that Bill Gates had white privilege or for that matter, Jeff Bezos or George Soros or any other politically active billionaire? Never.
It’s possible the billionaires have paid for studies proving they don’t have white privilege. Maybe NYU will release one of those studies soon.
In the meantime, treat yourself. Watch Hillary Clinton approach the delicate question of privilege, in the flesh. Here she is, several years ago meeting with George Soros. Now, Soros is a man who made billions of dollars in the now-infamous practice of short selling. That’s been in the news recently. He was one of the pioneers of it.
So you have a billionaire hedge fund manager who shorts national currencies. It’s hard to imagine more privilege than that. But as you’ll notice in the tape we’re about to show you, Hillary Clinton does not scold George Soros for his white fragility. She never even mentions the lingering effects of racism and the patriarchy. No. Instead, she slobbers on George Soros.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Now among the many people who have stood up and said, I cannot sit idly by and watch this happen to the country I love is George Soros.
At this moment in time, our country needs us, and we need people like George Soros, who is fearless and willing to step up when it counts.
So please join me in welcoming George Soros.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Whoa. Did you see that? Did you watch the whole tape? Their meeting, the meeting between George Soros and Hillary Clinton ends with the kiss, not with a lecture about privilege, but with a kiss and that’s perfect. Of course, George Soros isn’t the problem, you’re the problem. Quote, “We need people like George Soros,” and studies prove it.
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor