I don't consider a privately-owned media organization to be capable of "censorship". They're perfectly free to print what they want, and to ignore what they don't want to disseminate.
In the New York "news" business, the lines are heavily blurred regarding the meaning of "privately owned." If you've been keeping up with it, you are aware of all sorts of inbreeding between Democrat politicians, governing officials and the New York based "News" services.
Something I have begun to believe is that the News Services are Liberal because their "Owners" make certain that they are. "Liberal" policies funnel money into the pockets of their "Owners" while efforts to stem reckless government spending or other reckless governmental policies (such as tolerance of illegal immigration) interfere with their ability to maintain their wealth and power.
I began to suspect something was wrong in 1995 when the Liberal media was having a screeching fit over attempts to balance the budget. I thought to myself; "Why would any rational person be opposed to balancing the budget? It is bedrock common sense that you can't spend more than you make? What sort of people would oppose this? "
Those getting wealthy off of it.
The Nazi state was well known to have business and government joined at the hip with both business and government in completely intimate contact with each other. It is very worrisome that this thing called "Crony Capitalism" has attained such a purchase in our society and I have great misgivings about where this is leading.
But to say the "News" services are "privately owned" appears to me to be a not exactly accurate way to characterize them. Their "owners" are part of the pseudo government "elite" nowadays, and they use their vast wealth and inherited monopolies to keep any real competition at bay.
To what, specifically, are you referring? The mere fact that the media may favor certain political views does not mean they are controlled by the government.
More like the government is controlled by them.... when they can manage it, which is far more often than they should.
Do not doubt for a minute that the media elected Bill Clinton. In 1992 I could point out to you dozens of ways in which the media was manipulating the public to get Clinton elected. A few examples:
Hyping Ross Perot to divide Conservatives and Libertarians.
Covering up Bill Clinton's past.
Deciding Republican's would be colored "Red" instead of communist Clinton.
Hyping fake news about the economy to damage George HW Bush.
Hyping fake news stories about Bush's "Adultery" which they simply made up.
And a lot more besides. The media pushes for the candidate that is guaranteed to grow government, and they always oppose the one that is intent on shrinking it.
I have come to believe that ultimately their owners bread is buttered by increasing government power, and so is their own power enhanced by their intimate contacts with people holding the levers of power,
This is a complex issue. I'm not sure I can sufficiently convey the scope of it within just a few messages. There are interactions all over the place, but to simplify the point, there is a coalition of interests with deep and extensive contacts between business interests and the governing power structure (what some call the "deep state") and they mean to keep their power and expand their wealth.
Their ownership of the media is a tool to further this goal, and they do not hesitate to use it against us. That their policies are ultimately destructive to "fly over country" bothers them not a whit.
