'The New York Times played fast and loose with the facts regarding Facebook’s ban of more than 800 pages and accounts on Thursday. The Times, as well as the Washington Post, were quick to report on the purge, and their stories were finely crafted in an apparent attempt to stir up support for it.
Both the Times and the Post stories rolled out shortly after Facebook announced its ban on the accounts in a blog post, but quotes directly from the horse's' mouth in the Times and the publication of screenshots of pages that were deleted at the time of Facebook's public announcement raise questions over whether there was coordination between the social media giant and the two most prominent liberal newspapers in the United States.
In the New York Times article, Facebook's ban is sometimes referenced in the future tense and sometimes in the past. For example, one bit reads, "The company said it would remove the pages and accounts," while another says, "Mr. Gleicher said that the accounts and pages that Facebook took down on Thursday violated its rules… "
What's even more revealing is the scarcity of journalists tweeting about this censorship. They're all patting themselves on the back for not being "that kind of writer" while information is deleted from record. You getting banned means they are more legitimate.
— Alex Rubinstein (@RealAlexRubi) October 12, 2018
That Mr. Gleicher is Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook's head of cybersecurity policy — who not only authored Facebook's statement about the ban but also spoke privately with the Times at length.
The Times cited by name a few of the banned pages but did not say how it learned that those specific pages had been shut down. The Washington Post said that Facebook named five pages it had banned in its statement; however, no such information exists in the statement.'
Read more: New York Times Serves as Facebook's Mouthpiece in Purge of Independent Media