BuzzFeed Loser Gets Zero Hedge Banned From Twitter

Editor’s note: Whatever you think of the hypothesis offered/explored by Zero Hedge the impression is Twitter was just waiting for something like this, and BuzzFeed has a vested economic motive in hobbling competition. A fan backup account has been set up here: link  (A small consolation for Zero Hedge whose original account was followed by over 600,000.)


First it was Facebook, then all of New Zealand; now Twitter has decided to suspend Zero Hedge.

Just as in the prior bans, which were eventually overturned, it is unclear what prompted Twitter’s abrupt censorship: the only notification we received from twitter was the following:

It is news to us that this website has (ever) “engaged in the targeted harassment of someone.”

What appears to have happened is that twitter received a complaint from the website best known for publishing the discredited Steele dossier when no other media outlet would touch it, and making cat slideshows of course, Buzzfeed, in which someone called Ryan Broderick (who appears to have a rather “colorful” history), writes that Zero Hedge  has released the personal information of a scientist from Wuhan, China, falsely accusing them of creating the coronavirus as a bioweapon, in a plot it said is the real-life version of the video game Resident Evil.”

A few points: the article referenced by Buzz Feed, “Is This The Man Behind The Global Coronavirus Pandemic?”, is as the title implies, a question, and one which considering the huge significance and life or death import of the Coronavirus pandemic, has to be answered, especially since even the establishment’s Foreign Policy magazine writes bat soup, which is widely being cited and circulated by the mainstream press as the cause of the coronavirus breakout, is not the cause of the Wuhan virus. The widely read website Health.com also chimes in: “No, Coronavirus Was Not Caused by ‘Bat Soup‘”. Meanwhile, Business Insider writes “Experts think the Wuhan coronavirus jumped from bats to snakes to people. Bats have been the source of at least 4 pandemics.”

So considering that Peng Zhou, who currently works at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, is the Leader of the Bat Virus Infection and Immunization Group at the Institute, the question certainly is a reasonable one and, in a normal world, would demand an answer from the established media (assuming it wasn’t afraid of risking lucrative Chinese funding) instead of leaving it to “fringe” websites.

The impetus to ask the question if the disease originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology is especially relevant in light of social media reports such as this one which claims to “have evidence here that the outbreak originated from Wuhan P4 Research Institute. You need to find a truly patriotic journalist to publish it to the public. You can personally trust me to provide a complete chain of evidence. Thank you.”

So did we have a right to ask the question if there is an alternative version for the emergence of the Coronavirus pandemic, especially with hundreds if not thousands of lives at stake? Absolutely.

As for Broderick’s statement that Peng was “accused falsely” we wonder how he knows this: did he speak to Peng? Did he get any comments? Did he get an official denial? No, he did not: as he writes, “BuzzFeed News has reached out to the scientist, whom it is declining to name.” So, it actually turns out that it is Buzzfeed that is once again presenting a false statement as fact, something Buzzfeed has been accused of doing over and over and over.

Meanwhile, those who wonder if Dr. Zhou has any link to the possible emergence of the Coronavirus following years of experimenting with bats, we urge you to read our full article instead of relying on the hearsay of ideologically biased journalists.

Second, and contrary to the claims presented by Buzzfeed, we did not release any “personal information”: Peng Zhou (周鹏) is a public figure, and all the contact information that we presented was pulled from his publicly posted bio found on a website at the Wuhan Institute of Virology which anyone with access to the internet can pull from the following URL: http://sourcedb.whiov.cas.cn/zw/rck/201705/t20170505_4783973.html, which is also the information we used.

So about Buzzfeed’s allegation, which was adopted by Twitter, that somehow we incited “targeted abuse”, here is what we said:

Something tells us, if anyone wants to find out what really caused the coronavirus pandemic that has infected thousands of people in China and around the globe, they should probably pay Dr. Peng a visit.

To which we then added the information obtained from his own bio page on the Institute’s website:

“Or at least start with an email: Dr Peng can be reached at peng.zhou@wh.iov.cn, and his phone# is 87197311″

Are we then to understand that we have now reached a point the mere gathering of information, which our colleagues in the media may want to eventually do as thousands of people are afflicted daily by the Coronavirus, is now synonymous with “abuse and harassment”? According to Twitter, and certainly our competitors in the media, the answer is yes.

In any case, we have emailed Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who incidentally happens to follow zerohedge…

… for the answer. If we get one, we will promptly share it with our readers. We aren’t holding our breath, however, as we realize how important it is to today’s media giants not to ruffle too many Chinese feathers or lack losing access to the Chinese market. After all, who can forget the following report from the New York Times about another of our media competitors that several years ago was itself engaged in “doxing” us (yet oddly wasn’t suspended by Twitter):

The chairman of Bloomberg L.P. said in a speech here on Thursday that the company should have reconsidered articles that deviated from its core of coverage of business news, because they jeopardized the huge sales potential for its products in the Chinese market.

The comments by the chairman, Peter T. Grauer, represented the starkest acknowledgment yet by a senior Bloomberg executive that the ambitions of the news division should be assessed in the context of the business operation, which provides the bulk of the company’s revenue. They also signaled which of those considerations might get priority.

Acknowledging the vast size of the Chinese economy, the world’s second-biggest after that of the United States, Mr. Grauer, said, “We have to be there.”

“We have about 50 journalists in the market, primarily writing stories about the local business and economic environment,” Mr. Grauer said in response to questions after a speech at the Asia Society. “You’re all aware that every once in a while we wander a little bit away from that and write stories that we probably may have kind of rethought — should have rethought.”

Bloomberg, the financial data and news company, relies on sales of its terminals, which are ubiquitous on bankers’ desks around the world, for about 82 percent of its $8.5 billion in revenue. But sales of those terminals in China declined after the company published an article in June 2012 on the family wealth of Xi Jinping, at that time the incoming Communist Party chief. After its publication, officials ordered state enterprises not to subscribe to the service. Mr. Grauer did not specifically mention the article about Mr. Xi or any other articles.

“Being in China is very much a part of our long-term strategy and will continue to be so going forward,” Mr. Grauer said. “It occupies a lot of our thinking — Dan Doctoroff, our C.E.O.; me; Mike; and other members of our senior team.”

Some current and former Bloomberg journalists, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they had hoped the controversy surrounding Bloomberg’s China reporting would prompt the company to reaffirm its support for investigative efforts. Mr. Grauer’s comments were met with dismay, particularly because he is regarded as close to Mr. Bloomberg and would be unlikely to voice views that were not broadly accepted at the top of the company.

Unlike Bloomberg, or anyone else in the mainstream media, we don’t plan on “rethinking” any of our articles just to curry favor with the powerful and we certainly will continue our own “investigative efforts”, even if it means we lose some of our inbound traffic.

Source: Zero Hedge

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
17 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

trackback

[…] Read further at Anti-Empire […]

David Chu
David Chu
4 months ago
joey n
joey n
4 months ago
Reply to  David Chu

That one was lifted from Gatestone Institute, known for sucking up to the USA, NATO and Israel. Look at the comments section on the ZH article you linked, and you’ll find overwhelmingly negative responses to the source being Gatestone.

Over two years ago, ZH lifted an article from Gatestone documenting what they perceive to be European elites’ contempt against Trump. (Addendum: ZH made it look as if being anti-Trump was a bad thing).

What would possess a normally pro-Russian site, or so I remember it
being, to lift an article from a hasbara source is beyond my
comprehension.

MTMT123
MTMT123
4 months ago

ZH is great in many things but when it comes to issues concerning china, ZH to alt-media is the equivalent of the NYT to the MSM …

David Chu
David Chu
4 months ago

Zerohedge is in the business of “fear porn” news blogging. Don’t get me wrong. They are quite good at writing news articles at a drop of a hat, meaning that they are very quick on the breaking news scene with their news blog articles. But their titles and a lot of their articles are in the vein of “if it bleeds, it leads” category. Sensationalism for the sake of eyeballs.

There is another side of ZH that most of their readers don’t know about and that is their relationship and probably financial sponsorship (and/or ownership) by the financial class (whom they serve) and financial terrorists (like Paul Singer whose annual reports ZH publishes). They often act in the interest of financial terrorists like Paul Singer.

What commentator Michael says below about ZH not censoring those who criticize Israel and Zionism is simply NOT true.

Al Carbone
Al Carbone
4 months ago

the way the website zero hedge is set up for comments is the worst I ever saw. it should just get Disqus

Brion Adair
Brion Adair
4 months ago

Oh yeah Buzzard Feed well what do expect?

hoyeru
hoyeru
4 months ago

Zerohedge is Libertarian, meaning they “hate the gov” and everything “left” yet they happily take advertising dollars from everyone who pays them. They always have the 2-3 required anti-China articles daily that describes how awful China is and how China’s economy is about to collapse. They have had 5-7 Coronivirus daily there yesterday when I checked.

Zeroheadge “articles” are mostly half baked BS written by fringe “journalists” that zerohedge simply links to. You don’t go to Zerohedge for in depth analysis but for a quick “whats happening around the world” look. To irresponsibly links to a half baked BS article an present it as truth is irresponsible at best.

David Chu
David Chu
4 months ago
Reply to  hoyeru

Not mention the anti-Russian ones too. Basically, they serve the financial class, i.e., the financial parasites that live off the labor of others.

MTMT123
MTMT123
4 months ago
Reply to  David Chu

ZH isnt so anti-russia, i have been reading ZH ofr ages and it appeared to be reasonably balanced and well informed – however over the past 2-3 years it has gradually adopted a pretty acerbic anti-china tone full of insinuation and aspersion most especially after trump-US started waging the “mother of all trade wars” against china – the ZH of today will make the gordon chang, david shambaugh or peter navarro kind awfully proud …

Charles Homer
Charles Homer
4 months ago

Here is yet another example of how American technology/social media companies are trying to control “the narrative”:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2019/12/twitter-and-shadow-banning-controlling.html

We live in a post-truth world.

Michael
Michael
4 months ago

Zero Hedge is one of the most fantastic websites around. Its coverage on such a range of subjects is very professional and all too often correct. 90% of its articles are related to the economy of America and the world. It has hardly any censorship against the commenters who often state their minds about Israel and Zionism, subjects that Twitter gets bent out of shape

irene austin
irene austin
4 months ago
Reply to  Michael

i have read zerohedge very day for 10 years. I gave up all TV soon after I found zerohedge. It is far more informative and funnier than the marxist/communist comedy central channel. The comments are epic and I will hate to see it go some day…. it is coming. All censorship is coming. It has gone too far and now.. well It’s too late to stop it. Just enjoy the lst of the ride… because it’s all over but the crying.

Arby
4 months ago
Reply to  irene austin

Good grief. Stop already. Zero Hedge, while being Conservative, is useful, as I find some other Conservative sites to be, notably The Duran. I’m leftwing myself and not fake Democratic Party-like leftwing. If you’re a fan of Zero Hedge, try imitating their good work ethic. They sometimes get it wrong (China is imprisoning its Wyghur population in concentration camps, news that they foolishly accepted from an outted source, namely ICIJ), but they provide a lot of good info (on non bus stuff, which is all that I’m into).

Michael
Michael
4 months ago
Reply to  irene austin

I just love ZeroHedge. they are brilliant. Me too. I have read that website for years, not as long as you but invariably they have some of the most revealing articles.
Censorship is specifically aimed against any negative language on Zionism, Israel, Judaism and Jews. due to that it will eventually fail.

Michael
Michael
4 months ago

The first time Zero Hedge was banned well known people immediately came to its defense including the famous Bloomberg.

David Chu
David Chu
4 months ago

@MTMT123 @hoyeru:disqus

ZH is in the business of selling eyeballs for its financial masters. Its “libertarian” facade is just that.

ZH is the poster child of the term “presstitute”!

Whoever is against the “Washington Consensus” becomes their focus of lies, half-truths, fake news, manufactured information, “narratives,” and character assassinations.

Cases in point: Venezuela, Argentina (before Macri and now post-Macri), Iran, Russia (when she is hot in the news), etc., etc., etc..

ZH to alt-media is the equivalent of the NYT to the MSM

That just about says it all.

Anti-Empire