CNN has seemingly taken great pains to downplay what has been revealed in the Twitter Files.
From justifying the suppression of the Hunter story to attempting to discredit Matt Taibbi and Elon Musk, CNN correspondents are apparently not impressed with what the Twitter Files has told us.
Real Arbiter of Real Information
In defense of Twitter suppressing the Hunter Biden story, CNN business correspondent Christine Romans implied that the suppression of the story was not censorship but that the social media platform was attempting to be a “real arbiter of real information.”
She added that the findings of the Twitter Files on the Hunter Biden story should be categorized under “m for meh.” She continued on, saying that, like Twitter CEO Elon Musk, Taibbi is “another voice” instead of a journalist, who has “disdained the mainstream media before.”
Bari Weiss wasn’t spared either. Tech reporter Brian Fung called her a “former conservative columnist” as he summarized her findings.
Reporter Weighs In
On Thursday, reporter Oliver Darcy joined the CNN correspondents on “CNN This Morning” to assist in “examining the truth behind the Twitter Files.” Darcy began by pointing out that Jack Dorsey previously stated that it had been a mistake for the company to censor the New York Post story on the Hunter Biden laptop in 2020.
Darcy also seemed to downplay the significance of the first installment of the Twitter Files by summarizing them as simply “messy content moderation that was happening behind the scenes.”
Darcy also called out a discrepancy between Matt Taibbi’s account of the Twitter Files and Musk’s.
“I will say on this specific Twitter Files drop, I thought what was really noteworthy was that Elon Musk’s hand-picked reporter Matt Taibbi said that there was no evidence of government involvement in trying to suppress this story and that was a big claim that Elon Musk had made earlier when he was hyping these Twitter Files. I think that’s very important to point out here.”
Darcy seemingly overlooked the fact that the first installment of the files was vetted by Twitter’s then-deputy general counsel Jim Baker without Musk’s knowledge, and certain parts of the files could have been hidden by Baker during his vetting.
Musk fired Baker as soon as it was discovered that he was the one vetting the information. Baker’s involvement in the vetting process could have resulted in an omission of files that would confirm intervention by the federal government in the suppression of the story.
Donie Sullivan implied that the idea that conservatives were targeted disproportionately by Twitter was “selective.” He also suggested that the action that Twitter took against Republican users was justified because the accounts that were suspended or banned were “often people sharing misinformation, disinformation, or hate.”
Sullivan also diminished the significance of the information by claiming it was information that “we actually knew about for the past few years” and that none of the information was “brand new.”