International
Study shows ‘X’ suppresses conservative media despite Elon Musk’s pledge to ‘investigate’ bias

From LifeSiteNews
The Media Research Center (MRC) Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider believes these ‘shocking’ findings are evidence that there is ‘a radical remnant within X fighting against Elon Musk.’
A recent study shows that the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) disproportionately suppresses conservative media content and elevates left-leaning voices despite owner Elon Musk’s pledge in May to “investigate” this bias.
Media Research Center (MRC) published on Friday the results of a study into how content on X is boosted and suppressed. Remarkably, MRC found that nearly 74 percent of the right-leaning media outlets it reviewed were de-boosted, with considerably lower scores than left-leaning outlets.
By contrast, MRC found that “an overwhelming majority of the left-leaning media outlets” have “highly favorable” visibility scores.
A researcher on X known as “@The1Parzival” determined how each social media account was scored by prompting the Musk-owned AI chatbot Grok with questions that revealed how they were ranked on the “backend” of X. The resulting data, shared with MRC, showed that four metrics shape an account’s “visibility” score: “Mass Appeal” (diversity of followers), “Reputation” (purported reliability), “Toxicity” (potentially offensive content or perceived harmfulness), and “Follower” (follower retention).
Using the ratings firm AllSides’ classification of media outlets by their “perceived” ideological bias on left-to-right scale, MRC found that X gave left-leaning media outlets an average visibility score of 82.64 out of 100, while right-leaning outlets received an average score of 63.56.
This difference has powerful consequences. Grok told MRC that a score of 65 out of 100 on reputation alone, for example, is the “minimum” required for an X account to be recommended on its feed. In addition, generally speaking, the higher an account’s score is, the greater is its reach and viewership on X.
Media outlets classified as right-leaning in MRC’s review included The Washington Times, The Federalist, Fox News, The Daily Wire, Blaze Media and The Daily Caller.
The Grok-acquired data further found that “a staggering 100 percent of left-leaning media outlets are assigned favorable ‘reputation’ scores by X’s employees,” and that these leftist outlets were assigned an average toxicity score of 26.33, compared to an average 47.60 score for right-leaning media outlets (a 21-point difference).
Left-leaning accounts with low toxicity scores included The New York Times (10/100) and MSNBC (20/100), which regularly features extraordinarily divisive content, such as the claim that those who believe rights come from God are “Christian nationalists” (a derogatory term in their usage), and the claim that children do not belong to their parents, but to “whole communities.”
The MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider believes these “shocking” findings are evidence that there is “a radical remnant within X fighting against Elon Musk.” However, it is unclear whether this is the case, given that the study comes two and half months after it was brought to Musk’s attention on X that conservative accounts are being “throttled.”
READ: UK gov’t official says people will be arrested for sharing posts that could incite ‘racial hatred’
U.S. Senator for Utah Mike Lee wrote on May 23, 2024, “How long will it take to get rid of the stage-five clingers at X—those who still periodically throttle conservatives?”
Musk replied, “Well, neither conservative [sic] nor progressives should be throttled. The point is to have an even playing field. I will investigate.”
.@elonmusk: how long will it take to get rid of the stage-five clingers at X—those who still periodically throttle conservatives? pic.twitter.com/rZ4SttCh59
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) May 24, 2024
The X CEO’s power over his platform’s algorithm is confirmed by February reports from X employees that Musk called an “all hands on deck” meeting to boost his own posts when he found that a Super Bowl tweet from Joe Biden garnered much more reach than his own.
Documents were shared with Business Insider showing that the “stated goal” of the meeting was to determine “why engagement” with Biden and Musk’s posts were different. The documents included a “snapshot of Twitter’s code that showed Musk’s tweets were being boosted.”
At the time, Platformer reported, “After his Super Bowl tweet did worse numbers than President Biden’s, Twitter’s CEO ordered major changes to the algorithm.”
Musk has repeatedly voiced a commitment to “free speech” and acknowledged the importance of Twitter/X’s adherence to this principle. He wrote on his platform in 2022, “Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy. Do you believe Twitter rigorously adheres to this principle?” He followed that up by asking: “Given that Twitter serves as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy. What should be done?”
Censorship Industrial Complex
Who tries to silence free speech? Apparently who ever is in power.

Now that Trump is running Washington, Conservative thinkers must ponder a new-found appreciation for silencing speech they don’t like.
From StosselTV
War on Words: Both Parties Try to Silence Speech They Don’t Like
Donald Trump, before he was reelected, said he’d end government censorship. But now that he’s in office? He calls speech he doesn’t like “illegal.”
Free Speech should be a bedrock American value, no matter who’s in office. After the murder of Charlie Kirk, Republicans, who once complained about censorship, became censors. Democrats suddenly flip-flopped. All politicians should remember, the way to fight speech you don’t like, is with more speech, not censorship.
After 40+ years of reporting, I now understand the importance of limited government and personal freedom.
——————————————
Libertarian journalist John Stossel created Stossel TV to explain liberty and free markets to young people.
Prior to Stossel TV he hosted a show on Fox Business and co-anchored ABC’s primetime newsmagazine show, 20/20.
Stossel’s economic programs have been adapted into teaching kits by a non-profit organization, “Stossel in the Classroom.” High school teachers in American public schools now use the videos to help educate their students on economics and economic freedom. They are seen by more than 12 million students every year.
———
To make sure you receive the weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://www.johnstossel.com/#subscrib…
———
Courageous Discourse
No Exit Wound – EITHER there was a very public “miracle” OR Charlie Kirk’s murder is not as it appears

By John Leake
Turning Point Spokesman: “No Exit Wound a Miracle”
Charlie Kirk Show producer Andrew Kolvet repeats extremely dubious claim purportedly made by “the surgeon who operated on Kirk.”
Monday Blaze Media (relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey) reported the following:
Turning Point USA spokesman and executive producer of the “Charlie Kirk Show” Andrew Kolvet revealed new details about the shooting that even doctors are calling a miracle. According to Kolvet, the surgeon who operated on Kirk claimed that the high-velocity bullet was powerful enough to kill multiple large animals — and “should have gone through” his body. But for some reason, Kirk’s body was able to stop it.
“I want to address some of the discussion about the lack of an exit wound with Charlie,” Kolvet wrote in a post on X.
“The fact that there wasn’t an exit wound is probably another miracle, and I want people to know,” Kolvet continued, explaining that he had spoken with the surgeon who worked on Charlie in the hospital.
“He said the bullet ‘absolutely should have gone through, which is very very normal for a high powered, high velocity round. I’ve seen wounds from this caliber many times and they always just go through everything. This would have taken a moose or two down, an elk, etc,’” he recalled.
“But it didn’t go through. Charlie’s body stopped it,” he added.
When he mentioned to the doctor that there were “dozens of staff, students, and special guests standing directly behind Charlie” when he was shot, the doctor reportedly replied, “It was an absolute miracle that someone else didn’t get killed.”
“His bone was so healthy and the density was so so impressive that he’s like the man of steel,” Kolvet recalls the doctor saying.
This is not a credible statement, and it raises a number of concerns.
It strikes me as very perplexing that a “surgeon operated on Kirk,” because in the video of the shooting, Charlie reacted with a decorticate posture—that is, an abnormal body posture characterized by flexion of the upper limbs—caused by severe trauma to the central nervous system. This indicates that the bullet either directly struck his cervical spinal cord, or the shock wave of the supersonic bullet passing near his spinal cord traumatized it.
A 150-grain, .30-06 bullet’s energy at 150 yards from the muzzle varies by ammunition, but a common hunting cartridge has an estimated value of approximately 1,800-2,000 foot-pounds (with the bullet traveling at about 2500 feet per second). In other words, the .30 caliber (.30 inch diameter) metal projectile struck his neck with sufficient kinetic energy to move a 2,000 pound mass a linear distance of one foot.
If the bullet that struck Charlie’s cervical spinal cord was a .30-06 fired from 150 yards away, it would have:
1). Severed his spinal cord, killing him instantly.
2). Passed through his neck.
Note that the cervical vertebrae are supported by strong muscles and have high compressive strength, but are far too delicate to stop a .30-06 bullet traveling at 2,500 feet per second.
If ALL of the kinetic energy of the bullet was absorbed by Charlie’s neck, it would have done spectacular trauma to his neck, as distinct from producing the clean bullet hole visible in the video footage that ruptured his Carotid artery.
Though I appreciate that some may find a supernatural explanation to be consoling, it seems to me that the investigation should not rest on the this explanation.
As I wrote a few weeks ago: If I were investigating the murder, I would consider the hypothesis that Charlie was shot with a weapon equipped with a suppressor and loaded with a subsonic cartridge to further reduce the sound. I have seen footage of someone firing a rifle with this setup, and the shot was amazingly quiet. The effective range of such a weapon is about 100 yards or less, and the shooter must be very skilled.
However, such a setup could fire a subsonic projectile that would penetrate a human neck without passing through it. In this scenario, the actual assassin (firing the suppressed rifle) hypothetically coordinated the timing of his shot with someone else firing a normal (supersonic and loud) rifle cartridge into the air at the same time to create a distraction or red herring.
In a functioning society in which the people trust their authorities—including their medical examiners—it would be easy to discover what happened and to disclose at least a preliminary report that would satisfy most reasonable people. The trouble our Republic is facing now is that so many of us no longer trust our federal and state authorities to tell us the truth.
For example, we have strong grounds for suspecting that medical examiners are not diligently investigating (with the proper analytic methods) unexpected, fatal cardiac arrests in young people to determine if they were caused by vaccine-induced myocarditis.
Subscribe to FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse).
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
-
City of Red Deer2 days ago
Plan Ahead: Voting May Take a Little Longer This Election Day
-
Crime23 hours ago
France stunned after thieves loot Louvre of Napoleon’s crown jewels
-
Uncategorized1 day ago
New report warns WHO health rules erode Canada’s democracy and Charter rights
-
Business1 day ago
US government buys stakes in two Canadian mining companies
-
Energy1 day ago
Minus Forty and the Myth of Easy Energy
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days ago
Ottawa Should Think Twice Before Taxing Churches
-
Fraser Institute1 day ago
Métis will now get piece of ever-expanding payout pie
-
Alberta2 days ago
Busting five myths about the Alberta oil sands