The New York Times recently released something that Glenn describes as "nothing other than a threat to Google and YouTube to silence anyone who is disagreeing." The piece, titled "Election Falsehoods Take Off on YouTube as It Looks the Other Way", was based on research done by the leftist "watchdog" Media Matters, which Glenn has exposed over and over again as a propaganda arm of the uber-Left used to destroy conservative voices. Glenn reviews the article, which insists that YouTube must crack down on election "misinformation" about the 2020 election and prepare to do the same for the 2024 election. But there's one part of this story that Glenn says everyone is missing: The Times had to make a correction at the end of the article that turns this whole story into "nothing" ...
Transcript
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Okay. So while they are doing this with Liz Cheney, you have the New York Times. Election falsehoods, take off on YouTube. As it looks the other way.
Now, this story, we've known has been coming now for about a week. And they finally published it today.
This is nothing other than a threat to Google and YouTube, to silence anyone who is disagreeing.
And I will give you -- I will give you the -- the one thing that everybody has missed on this. At the end of this story. Okay. So the YouTube -- this story from the New York Times is this: In June 2023, YouTube decided to stop fighting the most persistent strain of election misinformation in the United States, the falsehood that President Biden stole the 2020 election from Donald J. Trump. Now, I ask you first, if you just want to be a fair arbiter. Are they stopping all of the videos of Hillary Clinton saying in 2016, that he's an illegitimate president? That he knew he was an illegitimate president, that Russia had aided him in winning it?
Are they limiting those? Or demonetizing any of those videos?
The answer is no. It's just the 2020.
Within months, the largest video platform, became a home for election conspiracy theories.
Half-truths, and lies.
They in turn, became the source of revenue for YouTube. Which announced growing quarterly ad sales on Tuesday.
Now, what is that?
Why is that there?
Because that is the New York Times, through Media Matters, telling YouTube, we could boycott you, and your advertisers. We'll cause hell to rain down on you.
That's a threat, believe it or not, to Google. While Media Matters.
Based this entire story on Media Matters. You know who Media Matters is. Media Matters was started, with Hillary Clinton and George Soros.
It is nothing, but a -- a tool, used by the uber left, to destroy anyone who can make any kind of impact with conservative arguments.
That's all it is.
STU: Uh-huh.
GLENN: While Media Matters is a progressive organization, that regularly criticizes conservatives, reporters and academics, frequently cite it as a source of YouTube misinformation, because it devotes significant resources to tracking the vast platform. They're not tracking the vast platform. They're tracking conservatives. Okay?
STU: No. They're coming up -- they start and reverse-engineer.
GLENN: Yes!
STU: Who do we want to destroy?
Find a way to destroy them. That's what they do.
GLENN: Right! And this is well-documented.
And at first, I really thought. When I was at CNN. And Media Matters was just starting. I really thought, okay. They don't know.
The media doesn't know. They get used to. In the old days, they get faxes. Now they get emails.
All of the reporters. All the networks. Even Fox.
They get something from Media Matters, every day. Says, these are the targets.
This is what's going on.
And they run with them. Now, back in 2004, maybe, you could understand that. Because they were new.
Now, everyone knows what they are. And here's the New York Times.
Kowtowing.
30 conservative channels are on YouTube, posted 286 videos, containing election misinformation.
Which racked up more than 47 million views.
YouTube generated revenue for more than a third of those videos, by placing ads before and during them.
Researchers found. Researchers, meaning Media Matters.
Some commentators also made money from those videos, and other monetized features available to members of the YouTube Member Partner Program.
Commentators included former elected officials such as Rudolph W. Giuliani.
Journalists like Tucker Carlson, who said the last presidential election was stolen. And popular pundits like Ben Shapiro, who said Democrats rigged the voting rules in 2020.
Now --
STU: I've heard him talk about that before. Ben Shapiro. In particular.
GLENN: Who you know he quoted?
This is an actual quote. Okay? The New York Times.
He was quoting the New York Times. That led him to that conclusion. The way they had -- you know, Marc Elias. And everybody, all the engineering because of COVID. And all of the lawsuits and getting things changed.
STU: Yeah.
GLENN: That's what he was talking about.
STU: Right. He's not one that believes in Sidney Powell conspiracy theories. He's been very clear. That the technical rule changes, before the election, may very well have been the determining factor.
GLENN: Right. And he said, they rigged it. They legally rigged it.
They went in, and they did everything. And the Republicans were just asleep at the switch.
But he doesn't think that it was stolen. Now, that's very, very clear.
But notice the New York Times doesn't make that clear.
GLENN: Hmm. Shocking.
GLENN: Then he goes on, YouTube, which is owned by Google, has prided itself on connecting viewers with authoritative information about elections. But in this presidential context, it has acted as a megaphone for conspiracy theories.
A research director, at Media Matters, who led the analysis, said, YouTube is allowing these right-wing accounts and channels to undermine the 2024 results.
YouTube spokesperson said that the company reviewed eight videos, identified by the Times. And the ability to openly debate political ideas, even those that are controversial, is -- is appear important value. Especially in the midst of election season.
Most of the 30 channels are ineligible for advertising.
So they've already cut the money off.
Okay? You watch any of my videos. I don't make a dime on YouTube.
Don't make a dime on YouTube. Nothing. They have so suppressed our numbers. We haven't grown in I don't even know, five years. It's not even possible.
We're growing everywhere, by leaps and bounds. I am -- I am more -- the footprint, let's say it this way. That sounds very egotistical.
The footprint of this program is bigger than it ever has been. Okay?
We're growing in every metric, except for social media. Now, how does that happen?
How does that happen?
Most of the 30 channels are ineligible for advertising. Some had previously violated the company's content policies.
The spokesperson added this report, demonstrates our consistent approach to enforcing our policies.
But in June 2023, the platform reversed course, saying, creators were allowed to dispute the outcome of any past presidential race, as YouTube tried to offer a home for open discussion and debate during the ongoing election season.
Now, does that sound bad?
Does that sound bad? We can debate anything, in this nation. Anything.
And anyone who is trying to silence that debate. I don't even want to -- to silence Holocaust deniers.
Let them hang themselves with their own words. Okay?
You should be able to debate anything. It's the United States of America. So YouTube says, we're just trying to be a home for discussion, and debate!
Okay. YouTube declined to comment on how it would reimpose a ban on misinformation.
About the outcome of the race.
YouTube removed only three of the videos that Media Matters found and placed information labels on them.
To link to factual information, on 20 of them. Though most of the election labels were later removed.
Some of the commentators seized on the news of the events.
Mr. Trump's conviction on May 30th. On 34 felony counts. Cash Patel. Who served in the Trump administration.
Posted. On an independent television network. That the justice system was rigged against the former president, to interfere with the election.
Can you imagine this not being said by the Democrats, if the roles were reversed?
Of course. Of course they would say that.
The entire media would be saying that. That these are all rigged juries. They place them in Washington DC. Or New York.
You can't get a fair trial.
Blah, blah, blah. The New York Times goes on to say, well, no. That's true.
Mike Davis, a former Senate aid, who runs a judiciary advocacy group called the Article 3 project, claimed that Mr. Biden, his allies, and his aides, were behind Mr. Trump's convictions.
Mr. Davis said, Biden is behind the unprecedented indictments of Trump.
He responded to questions from the New York Times, with an attack on the Times reporting, on a post in X.
There is also a swell of misinformation. From 30 other YouTube creators in July, when republicans in the House passed the Save Act, which would require voters to provide proof of citizenship.
The bill did not become law. But it prompted inaccurate claims on YouTube.
That the undocumented immigrants voted en masse in 2020, and would do the same this fall.
In a Fox news appearance, Senator Ted Cruz, Republicans from Texas, said Democrats wanted more than 11 million undocumented immigrants to vote.
Democrat -- Democrat Party has decided that the voter fraud is good for them.
Okay. None of this is shocking at all.
What's shocking is the correction, at the end of the New York Times story.
They added this: A YouTube spokesperson said that the company reviewed eight videos identified by the Times. Ready?
Which was pointed out to the Times by Media Matters. Then the Times took those, and gave them to YouTube. And said, these are the ones we're talking about.
And those videos, according to YouTube, did not violate its community guide lines.
So this whole story is nothing!
Is nothing!
STU: Shocker.
GLENN: They came up with 30. They said, here are the eight worst, send these to the Times. The Times then took Media Matters at its word. Went to YouTube, with all these accusations and threats.
And YouTube watched them and said, well, they don't violate any of our guidelines. So what do we do?
STU: Hilarious.
GLENN: This is craziness.
STU: The failure. Imagine failing this often.
What kind of organization would ton exist with this level of failure.
GLENN: It's pathetic.
It's really embarrassing. It's really embarrassing.
It's not really failure. Even if your story is having an impact and you're embarrassing yourself, if you're getting hundreds of thousands of dollars coming into your bank account, I guess.
GLENN: I guess, if that's how you want to live your life. It just leads to misery.