Irony died multiple deaths on Thursday’s edition of Amanpour and Company on PBS. First, host Christiane Amanpour and Columbia Journalism School Dean Jelani Cobb lamented that social media companies are moving away from fact-checking, which, they said, will make it harder to hold the government accountable, despite their own historical difficulties with the truth. Second, they worried that Trump’s relationship with people like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg will lead to the creation of a “government line” on social media that must be toed.
Amanpour began, “President Biden’s outgoing speech made also reference to an oligarchy, and he was also talking about the heads of the big streaming platforms, the big social media platforms which have, like Elon Musk, got major governmental, you know, economic contracts and things like that who have – who’ve moved away from fact-checking, Meta moved away from fact-checking. They were all sat in pretty much the front row behind the presidential families at the inauguration.”
She further worried, “What does that mean when the oligarchs are not Rubber Barons like in Russia or in the early days of the United States, but they are media titans?”
Cobb replied, “I mean, I think there’s reason to be concerned, there should be reason to be concerned when you see the kind of what we consider the information infrastructure of the nation. That being that closely aligned with government itself.”
To be fair, Amanpour and Company originally airs on CNN International, but Americans see it on the Public Broadcasting Service. It’s especially ironic considering Amanpour just spent four years cheerleading for the Democratic administration, only really challenging it from the left on Israel. For additional irony, those criticisms were not even factually accurate, sometimes misrepresenting CNN’s own reporting.
As it was, Cobb continued to try to wax poetic, “You know, in the United States, you know, we think of the press and the media as the fourth estate, that we’re supposed to be a kind of immune system for democracy. We’re supposed to be specifically outside of government in order to operate as a check on government, to inform the public and the public can then use that information to form their opinions, and public opinion is ultimately at the core of democracy. That’s how it’s supposed to work.”
Cobb added, “When you see that kind of alignment and that kind of choreography, it raises the question about, you know, whether or not there is a kind of government line or a preferred way of viewing things that then will get amplified, you know, and disseminated on social media platforms. I don’t – can’t say that’s happening, I can’t say that’s true, but I’m saying that’s a question that we should pursue, like, why and what are the implications of this?”
Amanpour tried to tie it all together by citing Thomas Jefferson, “So, as you know, and I’m sure it’s emblazoned on the wall somewhere in the college there, Thomas Jefferson back in 1787 famously said, when it’s – ‘were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.’”
That’s a noble sentiment. It would just be nice if the media would also apply it when there is a Democratic president.
Here is a transcript for the January 23 show:
PBS Amanpour and Company
1/23/2025
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: And, Jelani Cobb, President Biden’s outgoing speech made also reference to an oligarchy, and he was also talking about the heads of the big streaming platforms, the big social media platforms which have, like Elon Musk, got major governmental, you know, economic contracts and things like that who have – who’ve moved away from fact-checking, Meta moved away from fact-checking. They were all sat in pretty much the front row behind the presidential families at the inauguration.
What does that mean when the oligarchs are not Rubber Barons like in Russia or in the early days of the United States, but they are media titans?
JELANI COBB: I mean, I think there’s reason to be concerned, there should be reason to be concerned when you see the kind of what we consider the information infrastructure of the nation. That being that closely aligned with government itself.
You know, in the United States, you know, we think of the press and the media as the fourth estate, that we’re supposed to be a kind of immune system for democracy. We’re supposed to be specifically outside of government in order to operate as a check on government, to inform the public and the public can then use that information to form their opinions, and public opinion is ultimately at the core of democracy. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
When you see that kind of alignment and that kind of choreography, it raises the question about, you know, whether or not there is a kind of government line or a preferred way of viewing things that then will get amplified, you know, and disseminated on social media platforms. I don’t – can’t say that’s happening, I can’t say that’s true, but I’m saying that’s a question that we should pursue, like, why and what are the implications of this?
AMANPOUR: So, as you know, and I’m sure it’s emblazoned on the wall somewhere in the college there, Thomas Jefferson back in 1787 famously said, when it’s – “were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
This post was originally published on here
