Pointing out that you are misrepresenting what we are talking about is a personal attack? How do personal attacks even lend support for an opposing view point?<p>I am not sure if you actually read what happened, but this was a case of certain sources being &quot;ignored&quot; because they are borderline tabloids that often push stories that aren&#x27;t even remotely true. Waiting for another source to pick up the story and then publish it, isn&#x27;t censorship. It&#x27;s reasonable.<p>For this to be censorship based on a specific political ideology following along one side of the spectrum, you&#x27;d have to have an example where they let through other sources that are also tabloid-esque but happen to fall along within their opinions and views.<p>Did the standard for their sources remain relatively constant regardless of the material being discussed? There isn&#x27;t a clear answer here, but that doesn&#x27;t make it defacto censorship of one set of particular political opinions. The sources that were discussed aren&#x27;t credible in any meaningful form. The fact that they happen to be largely conservative seems like a problem conservatives should address instead of calling it censorship.<p>A good number of posters in this thread seem fine with not bothering to really think of ways that the presented scenario doesn&#x27;t hold up and completely accept what was stated is what was actually happening. It&#x27;s a characteristically low standard of evidence and it just so happens that some of you have made it very clear that such a scenario also happens to align with your opinions. It&#x27;s fantastically hypocritical.<p>&gt;So you don&#x27;t care about conservative views getting silenced here.<p>I am only going to clarify this once more and then I am no longer going to respond to you. I am not encouraging, advocating, enabling silencing of views here. I said I am okay such view points not getting a larger platform or attention, because it&#x27;s a waste of time. Note that this is not the same as silencing, preventing discussion, outlawing, etc, etc. However, pretending that discussing all view points without considering whether they hold merit or not is somehow a path to better national dialogue is simply unfounded and doesn&#x27;t make any sense. But that&#x27;s <i>my</i> opinion, and really wasn&#x27;t even what happened in the case above. That specific opinion of mine was brought up in response to someone claiming that we should defacto just give everything an equal voice in the national dialogue and somehow not doing so is censorship that will derail rational discourse on a national scale.<p>&gt;But what if the major media outlet changes it&#x27;s mind and starts to think liberals are wrong<p>You seem to misunderstand why this is happening. It&#x27;s not a matter of opinions swaying. The sources discussed in the article have little to no credibility. The fact that they are all conservative is a problem conservatives might want to address.