>see themselves as the arbiters of truth
They are at some level. Of course, a newspaper isn't going to present all sources as being of equal authority. If someone is spouting nonsense at some point you cut them off.
They are at some level. Of course, a newspaper isn't going to present all sources as being of equal authority. If someone is spouting nonsense at some point you cut them off.
Sure, it happened to Trump this time because it was telling lies.
But imagine what would happen if they did the same to a president who was telling truths that the network didn’t like.
It’s about the power that allows the act, not the act itself.
On the other hand, there has never been an era when individuals had as much ability to male their voices heard or, for better or worse, such diversity of news (and "news") sources.
There's also the fact that Twitter is a platform and not a publication. And there are certainly questions of what happens when dominant platforms that control access to eyeballs start regulating what people can people can publish there according to reality as it exists for the tech world.