Shutting Down Sites in the Name of Fake News Will Lead to One Thing: A Less Informed Population

by Mark Angelides

With Democrat leaders and MSM calling for “Fake News” sites to be shut down, monitored or audited, we are on the verge of an incredibly dangerous decision. If nations choose to censor or make the production of news sites a state affair, we risk being in a place where the only allowed news in State news. And this does no one any good, whether on the left or the right.
The idea of shutting down news sites that don’t fit in with mainstream narrative that Hillary Clinton proposed during her campaign, has gained traction in the circles of the elite, and is being actively chased by “sponsored activist groups”. This idea has a dark history behind it and we actually have examples of what happens when the State controls the media output.
The CPJ (Committee to Protect Journalists) have compiled a list of countries that have State Media:

  • Eritrea
  • North Korea
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Ethiopia
  • Azerbaijan
  • Vietnam
  • Iran
  • China
  • Myanmar
  • Cuba

These are the countries where very few (or zero) free news broadcasters and journalists are permitted. These countries are also places that have high political corruption and poor human rights records; it is worth looking at the connection between individual freedoms and press freedom.
When the State takes over the media (or becomes the sole licenser of the media), two things happen.

We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
  1. People stop reading the news. When media is State controlled, media becomes a mouthpiece for propaganda. For example, in China, not only is print and broadcast media under control, but also the internet is subject to controlled information flow: “The Great firewall of China”. Regular people don’t follow the State news, in fact, they actively disbelieve or willfully ignore media announcements.
  2. The government behaves worse. For example, in Turkey last year, the previously free media began being censored by the State and since then the increase in human rights violations and civil unrest has been significant.

If the MSM becomes the only news available, people will stop reading (watching) it. This means people are less active in political engagement and become more low-information voters. To have an informed electorate is the very basis of a free and democratic society, banning news sources is the thin end of the wedge in individual freedom. And if we don’t stop it now, the US could soon face the same challenges as those countries listed above.


8 thoughts on “Shutting Down Sites in the Name of Fake News Will Lead to One Thing: A Less Informed Population”

  1. I don’t know how the majority of Americans could possibly be less – or mis – informed than they already are, but wouldn’t the US government more enjoy a Free Ride, like Obama got from the media, from the public?
    Look at the uncomfortable questions Hillary had to face and lie her ass off about. And since NOTHING EVER FUCKING HAPPENS TO THESE PEOPLE, wouldn’t it be easier – and at far less cost – to just let them go and do as they please?
    They do, anyway, save for a few question/answer sessions, which is promptly dropped, with Hillary-supporters saying; “SEE!? We TOLD you she was ‘innocent’…”.

  2. A less informed populace is what we had prior to the alternative media. We have had fifty years of fake history thanks to the fascists control of the fake media and now they have the nerve to call the alternative media fake? Do you not believe that Walter Cronkite was in the CIA? That Dan Rather supported the shot from behind? That the Zapruder film (which was not released until 1975) was doctored to conceal the fact that the limo stopped so that Kennedy could be killed? Americans inhabit a false reality and appear ridiculous to the rest of the world. Andy Capp had it right–this is a nation of schmoos.

  3. Sorry, WTF did I just read? Are we seriously talking about State run media shutting its competition down in the United States? How is that remotely possible with the First Amendment? Even taking this proposition seriously or acting like it is plausible is lending credence to this insanity.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.