Media Matters for America (11/16/23): “We recently found ads for Apple, Bravo, Oracle, Xfinity and IBM next to posts that tout Hitler and his Nazi Party on X.”
He wasn’t bluffing.
After threatening to sue liberal media watchdog Media Matters for America (CNBC, 11/18/23), Twitter’s principal owner Elon Musk did just that, arguing in papers filed in a Texas court that the group “manipulated” data in an effort to “destroy” the social media platform, causing major advertisers to pull back (BBC, 11/20/23).
The world’s richest human was responding to an MMFA report (11/16/23) about Twitter—which Musk has rebranded as X since purchasing the once publicly traded company—and its promotion of far-right, antisemitic content. It said that while “Musk continues his descent into white nationalist and antisemitic conspiracy theories,” the social media network has been “placing ads for major brands like Apple, Bravo (NBCUniversal), IBM, Oracle and Xfinity (Comcast) next to content that touts Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party.”
Elon Musk (BBC, 11/20/23) promised a “thermonuclear” lawsuit against anyone “who colluded in this fraudulent attack on our company.”
The report came just as the world stood in shock of Musk’s latest outburst of antisemitism: Just before the lawsuit was filed, he “publicly endorsed an antisemitic conspiracy theory popular among white supremacists: that Jewish communities push ‘hatred against whites’” (CNN, 11/17/23). This received widespread condemnation, including from the White House (Reuters, 11/17/23).
A few weeks earlier, the South African–born billionaire had endorsed the “white genocide” conspiracy theory (Mediaite, 10/27/23), a central myth of white supremacy: “They absolutely want your extinction,” he replied to a Twitter user who claimed that the melting down of a statue of Robert E. Lee was proof that “many seek our extinction.” The reported exodus of advertisers from Twitter in such a brief time span has been enormous (AP, 11/18/23).
The AP (11/20/23) reported that Twitter’s lawsuit claims MMFA “manipulated algorithms on the platform to create images of advertisers’ paid posts next to racist, incendiary content,” and that the lawsuit states that the instances of hateful content near such advertisements were “manufactured, inorganic and extraordinarily rare.” (By “manufactured,” Musk means that MMFA got its results by following far-right accounts on Twitter as well as the accounts of Twitter‘s major advertisers.)
Antisemitic vitriol
New York Times (12/2/22): Researchers said “they had never seen such a sharp increase in hate speech, problematic content and formerly banned accounts in such a short period on a mainstream social media platform.”
It isn’t a secret that antisemitic vitriol has increased on the site under Musk’s management (New York Times, 12/2/22; Washington Post, 3/20/23; Vice, 5/18/23). What’s different now is that the MMFA report and the anger toward his last outburst happened as he is losing the business he desperately needs, as the brand has been rapidly tanking since he spent $44 billion to acquire it (Fortune, 5/30/23).
The case was filed in Texas, although Twitter is based in California and MMFA is in Washington, DC. Musk’s choice of venue has everything to do with his right-wing politics and nothing to do with compliance with the law. Fast Company (11/21/23) wrote:
The case has been assigned to District Judge Mark Pittman, a Donald Trump appointee whose previous rulings include blocking President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan and declaring a Texas law banning people ages 18 to 20 from carrying handguns in public was unconstitutional.
Also, by filing in the state, the case can be heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has backed several conservative figures who claim they’ve been censored in the past.
MMFA is nevertheless confident that it will win the case; in a statement published by CNBC (11/18/23) before Musk’s suit was filed, Media Matters president Angelo Carusone declared:
Far from the free speech advocate he claims to be, Musk is a bully who threatens meritless lawsuits in an attempt to silence reporting that he even confirmed is accurate. Musk admitted the ads at issue ran alongside the pro-Nazi content we identified. If he does sue us, we will win.
Defamation cases are difficult for the plaintiff to win, especially in the case of someone like Musk, a public figure, who must prove that even false statements against them were intentional lies or made with “reckless disregard for the truth.” Legal experts cited by CNN (11/21/23) characterized the lawsuit as “weak” and “bogus.”
That doesn’t mean that legal fees, hours of working on the case and sleepless nights won’t impact MMFA’s work. In a case like this, a Goliath like Musk doesn’t need to win in court to hamper a David like MMFA, which reports an annual revenue of about $19 million and total assets of $26 million. That’s pennies in comparison to Musk, whose net worth is valued at nearly $200 billion (CBS News, 10/31/23). Mounting legal bills for oligarchs like Musk are as significant as a McDonald’s hamburger.
Rallying call for right
In the topsy-turvy world of the New York Post (11/21/23), billionaires who sue critics of hate speech are champions of free speech.
The suit is also a rallying call for the right, as former Fox News host Megyn Kelly (New York Post, 11/20/23) and the Federalist (11/21/23) are cheerleading the legal action. Greg Gutfeld of Fox News (11/21/23) welcomed the lawsuit, calling MMFA a “hard-left smear machine.” The New York Post editorial board (11/21/23), using Freudian projection, said the suit was a reaction to the liberal determination to “bring down Elon Musk for championing free speech.” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican who fought to overturn the 2020 presidential election (Austin American-Statesman, 5/25/22), said he was opening an investigation into MMFA (The Hill, 11/21/23).
Musk—who is hostile to organized labor (NPR, 3/3/22; Forbes, 12/5/22), who has promoted anti-trans hate on Twitter (San Francisco Chronicle, 12/13/22; Business Insider, 1/2/23; The Nation, 6/23/23) and who backed Republicans in last year’s midterm elections (Politico, 11/7/22)—has become a darling of the right. A billionaire boss with socially conservative views, he has amped up the mythology that social media networks are somehow rigged against the right (Vox, 12/9/22; New York, 12/10/22; Daily Beast, 4/6/23; CNN, 6/6/23), and that his takeover of Twitter will lead to more balance.
What has resulted since his takeover is an unrelenting campaign of censorship. El País (5/24/23) reported that since his takeover, the platform “has approved 83% of censorship requests by authoritarian governments,” and has shown a particular interest in censoring critics of India’s right-wing regime (Intercept, 3/28/23). It has silenced left-wing voices at the behest of “far-right internet trolls” (Intercept, 11/29/22). And in order to silence criticism of Israel–an impulse that is not incompatible with antisemitism–Musk has threatened to suspend users who use the word “decolonization” or the phrase “from the river to the sea,” a reference to the original borders of historic Palestine before the proposed partition and Israel’s eventual founding (Mother Jones, 11/18/23). Journalists on the social media beat have been banned (CNN, 12/17/22; Daily Beast, 4/19/23).
Sinister forces
Media Matters (11/15/23): Musk has reinstated known white nationalists and antisemites on the platform” and “amplified conspiracy theories that were used to push antisemitism.”
MMFA was founded in 2004—in the midst of the “War on Terror” fervor of the George W. Bush years—by former right-wing journalist turned liberal consultant David Brock, who launched it to keep an eye on the rising influence of conservative news and talk shows (New York Times, 5/3/04). Its ongoing criticism of both Musk and corporate media like Fox News (Rolling Stone, 7/28/19) makes it the perfect target for the right. In the paranoid fantasyland of US conservatism, MMFA sits alongside George Soros, Black Lives Matter and Antifa as sinister forces who are out to undermine traditional social hierarchies.
And one can understand why Musk has a personal interest in going after MMFA, as the group (10/5/23, 11/13/23, 11/15/23) has focused on his politics and his administration of the website since he took it over.
I have written for several years about the right’s attempt to use the courts and legislatures to destroy press freedom to suppress reporting and opinions the rich and powerful don’t like (FAIR.org, 3/26/21, 5/25/22, 11/2/22, 3/1/23). The lawsuit sends a warning to reporters and advocates that can be easily interpreted: Musk isn’t just interested in taking over one social media network, but also drowning out the voices of anyone who challenges him. The point of this lawsuit is to intimidate anyone who speaks out against antisemitism, white supremacy and other forms of bigotry.
For those of us who care deeply about free speech and a free press, let’s hope this lawsuit is swiftly tossed out.
What the “X” truly stands for
i wonder if “Fair” has integrity.
No, it has not :)
Obviously not considering it’s single sided view of this case. Un-fair.
I read most of Musk’s stuff and have never found anything anti-semitic in it.
Nor does the author of this piece tell us what Musk said that he considers anti-semitic.
Nor could the EU’s Charles Michel when he attempted to censor Musk.
Nor could the BBC interviewer.
Because Musk made no anti-semitic statements.
How hard did you look? Because googling “musk endorses antisemtic conspiracy theory” returns a page full of stories about him replying “You said the actual truth” to some crazy dickweed who accused Jews of promoting white hatred and Jews wanting to bring in “hordes of minorities” to immigrate into white nations.
First Musk was being attacked for NOT censoring, now he is being attacked for “censoring” defamatory attacks by those who want to censor. FAIR is now becoming the ill-natured corporate media that it once decried.
“First Musk was being attacked for NOT censoring,”
We never attacked him for not censoring, or anyone for not censoring, for that matter.
“now he is being attacked for “censoring” defamatory attacks by those who want to censor.”
First, the use of scare quotes is interesting because we show how Twitter has censored speech since Musk awkward. That doesn’t seem debatable. What does seem debatable is whether the MMFA is, in fact, “defamatory,” as that is only an accusation at this point. Also, the MMFA report doesn’t censor Musk. Criticism of Musk doesn’t censor him.
“FAIR is now becoming the ill-natured corporate media that it once decried.”
FAIR is a small non-profit organization. Elon Musk is a billionaire corporate capitalist. It is fine to take his side and disagree with this piece. That’s the nature of debate and free speech. But please, words have meaning. Use them correctly.
FAIR is now becoming the ill-natured corporate media that it once decried.
Lol the last sentence in my comment was a copy and paste job that went wrong.
Lol. Last line on my comment was a copy and paste error
Stop wondering ‘Fair’ is not fair and does not have integrity. They preach to the choir.
i think it look like Musk is correct.
David Brocks, media matters looks like its cherry picking a few tweets and making the ads look like there is a connection.
Looks like a smear campaign. FAIR should review this.
What’s truly insane is that in this article never once mentions the background, political bias and agenda of founder David Brock, nor the basis of the lawsuit.
Ari then acts like MMfA is a “David” – against a Goliath – as if Musk would spend any of his illiquid assets to fund a defamation suit is laughable.
MMfA ONLY has a budget of $26 million? Who is giving David Brock $26 million? Start challenging BOTH SIDES. They play off each other. MMfA is NOT a purveyor of good. The right wingers are right (in this case) about it being a smear factory, but it doesn’t need ties to Soros when it’s already tied to the Clintons.
Even The Atlantic admitted the bias in 2015. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/media-matters-and-the-battle-for-the-hillary-clinton-narrative/455403/
“What’s truly insane is that in this article never once mentions the background, political bias and agenda of founder David Brock, nor the basis of the lawsuit.”
We absolutely do say this. To repeat from the article: “MMFA was founded in 2004—in the midst of the ‘War on Terror’ fervor of the George W. Bush years—by former right-wing journalist turned liberal consultant David Brock, who launched it to keep an eye on the rising influence of conservative news and talk shows (New York Times, 5/3/04).”
“Ari then acts like MMfA is a “David” – against a Goliath – as if Musk would spend any of his illiquid assets to fund a defamation suit is laughable.”
Why is that laughable? The man spent $44 billion on a website that is losing value. Is that also laughable?
“MMfA ONLY has a budget of $26 million? Who is giving David Brock $26 million?”
You can look at its 990 just like anyone else, which we link to. Also, remember to put that $26 million in the context we provided. $26 million is a lot smaller than Musk’s $200 billion.
“Start challenging BOTH SIDES. They play off each other. MMfA is NOT a purveyor of good. The right wingers are right (in this case) about it being a smear factory, but it doesn’t need ties to Soros when it’s already tied to the Clintons.
Even The Atlantic admitted the bias in 2015. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/media-matters-and-the-battle-for-the-hillary-clinton-narrative/455403/”
You are free to not like with MMFA says or disagree with its political position. That’s fine. You can say that all you want. But people who value free speech don’t wish to see a world where the mega-rich sue someone just because they have a political opinion they don’t like. This is less a left-vs-right issue than it is a free speech issue.
Why are there a bunch of folks on this comment section accusing ‘FAIR’ of being bad when it’s pointing out the clear history of how Mush loves white supremacy and is a blatant hypocrite?
#DeportMusk
Reserving judgement on this. Musk seemed unduly “deferential” in discussion with Netanyahu but nevertheless put forward challenging propositions that seemed to me to highlight the disingenuousness of the Israeli position.
this one article is enough to prove to me that this site is a dishonest actor. Not giving equal opportunity for both sides to ‘speak’ their piece.
I would wait for the forensics on this. David Brock, the founder of Media Matters, is well known as a Hillary hitman (first against, then for) not above manipulating the news. Careful reading of the tweet Musk affirmed doesn’t show what excited reporting claims it does — really, have a good read at it.
The question is whether Brock and Co. played games with the placement of ads to make it appear that Musk was Goebbels. This apparently can be demonstrated by tracking the Nazi ads and their approvals. In a fair court setting — that is, one that hasn’t been overwhelmed by Musk fever — the proof should appear.
just an FYI for the author of this disappointing screed: support FOR israel is very often “anti-semitic”. never mind that the (inane and ahistoric) term has been overused to the point where it gives “iconic”, “epic” and “insurrection” a run for their money.
i also don’t get the point of anit-speech types and their pant’s filling terror at the sight of an IDEA they don’t like. never mind that seeing “far right” (read as: anything the hipsters at vice don’t like) ads isn’t going to make you sprout a silly moustache and yell “mein fuhrer i can walk!”
ditto for the “anti-trans” wank i KNEW would come up in this word salad. it’s funny how similar the “gender” crowd and “israel” crowd are when it comes to defending their delusional ideologies. both keep up this whole “saying the truth is LITURUL GINOCYDES!!!11!!” schtick when the adults in the room know saying “a guy in lipstick is a guy” and “a white person from brooklyn isn’t a biblical ‘semite'” are just simple facts.