Capehart criticized the judicial decisions that have hindered the administration’s ability to combat harmful misinformation and disinformation during the pandemic, claiming they were influenced by fringe arguments. The alleged journalist emphasized the importance of addressing the issue with social media companies through dialogue while acknowledging their rights.

When the host asked about a recent court’s ruling compelling federal agencies to stop contacting social media companies, Capehart went into full spin mode, running cover for the administration:

This decision boggles the mind. You have an administration that is in the middle of a pandemic. The Biden administration comes in, in the middle of a pandemic, with disinformation, misinformation. They’re literally trying to save people’s lives and see that all that misinformation and disinformation is happening on social media platforms. A responsible, functioning government would go to those social media companies and say, hey, could we have a conversation about this? We understand your First Amendment rights, but we’re trying to save people’s lives.

I don’t understand how the arguments from the fever swamps have made their way into judicial decisions and are now preventing the administration from combating things that are doing real harm to the American people.

So, basically, Capehart tried to sell the audience on the idea that it is permissible for the government to violate the First Amendment as long as they can pretend they are doing it to save lives. But the fact that someone calling themselves a journalist would simply go along with this without even so much as a question shows just how far the press will go to be lapdogs of the state.

The perceived role of the media is to act as a watchdog, holding the government accountable and ensuring transparency. But apparently, today’s press has missed the memo on this. Defending the government’s collaboration with Big Tech companies to suppress dissenting views on social media seems to contradict this fundamental principle.

Moreover, the assertion that the Biden administration’s suppression of dissenting views was aimed at combating “misinformation” surrounding the pandemic and vaccines is laughable, considering how it defines the term. Many viewpoints labeled as “misinformation” were actually legitimate expressions of differing opinions and alternative interpretations of scientific data. Dismissing these viewpoints as mere falsehoods is intended to stifle healthy discourse and hinder the progress of knowledge.

Ironically, much of the so-called “misinformation” surrounding the pandemic originated from the government itself, particularly from renowned figures like Dr. Anthony Fauci. Shifting guidance on mask-wearing, conflicting statements about the origins of the virus, and the evolving understanding of transmission dynamics have all contributed to public confusion. It is essential to recognize that misinformation is not limited to one side of the debate and that even authorities can make mistakes or revise their positions.

When the government claims to act in the interest of public safety, the public should take notice. There is always a risk of overreach and the erosion of civil liberties. Capehart’s argument that the government should be allowed to suppress dissenting views under the guise of “saving lives” raises concerns about potential abuses of power. History has shown that governments often violate individual rights in the name of protecting society. Unfortunately, our once-vaunted fourth estate has shown they have no intention of informing the public on these issues.