Ben Shapiro Delivers Powerful Testimony Before House Judiciary Committee on Media Censorship of Conservatives

Ben Shapiro Delivers Powerful Testimony Before House Judiciary Committee on Media Censorship of Conservatives

Edited by: Fern Sidman

The current state of media trust is in a critical condition, as emphasized by conservative commentator Ben Shapiro during his testimony on Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee. Shapiro’s remarks, delivered alongside key figures such as Herrish Patel, president of Unilever USA; Christian Juhl, global CEO of GroupM; and Spencer Waller, a scholar specializing in competitive law, shed light on a contentious issue—alleged collusion within the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), as was reported on Wednesday on the Deseret.com web site.

In his testimony, Shapiro asserted that mainstream media outlets are actively preserving left-wing narratives, using selective reporting and bias to shape public perception. The information provided in the deseret.com report indicated that he cited the media’s handling of President Joe Biden’s mental competency as a prime example. According to Shapiro, initial questions regarding Biden’s health were quickly dismissed by major news organizations. However, Biden’s perceived lackluster performance in the debate later called attention to the public’s growing skepticism toward media reliability.

“The question isn’t really why the legacy media have lost Americans’ trust; we know that answer,” Shapiro stated, as was noted in the deseret.com report.  “The question is why, despite that loss of trust, the legacy media continue to gain share in the advertising market,” he added, This paradox, Shapiro argued, stems from political pressure exerted on social media companies by Democratic politicians and the White House, effectively censoring conservative voices and skewing public discourse.

A significant portion of Shapiro’s testimony focused on the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an initiative purportedly designed to tackle harmful content online. The deseret.com report said that Shapiro contended that GARM’s standards are inherently partisan, favoring left-leaning content while marginalizing conservative viewpoints. This bias, he suggested, is embedded within the very fabric of the initiative, influencing how advertisers and platforms define and respond to harmful content.

Shapiro highlighted the extensive influence of GARM, noting that its members account for a staggering 90% of ad spending in the United States, nearly $1 trillion. “In other words, if you’re not getting ad dollars from GARM members, it’s nearly impossible to run an ad-based business,” he asserted, as was pointed out in the deseret.com report.  This concentration of advertising power, Shapiro argued, creates a formidable barrier for media outlets and businesses that do not align with GARM’s standards, effectively stifling competition and diversity of thought.

Shapiro, the co-founder of the conservative media group Daily Wire, also highlighted the challenges faced by his organization due to overt political pressures on social media companies, as was stated in the deseret.com report.  Shapiro’s testimony highlighted the broader implications of these pressures on media freedom, advertising dynamics, and the principles of the First Amendment.

Shapiro described a significant decline in the visibility of his content on social media platforms, particularly Facebook. “Since 2021, after Democrat officials further turned up the heat on social media companies, my personal Facebook page has seen an over 80% drop in impressions,” Shapiro stated, as was reported by deseretc.om. This decline, he argued, is symptomatic of a larger issue where political influences shape the algorithms and policies of major social media companies, disproportionately affecting conservative voices.

To address these concerns, Shapiro proposed two primary solutions aimed at safeguarding the First Amendment. Firstly, he called for Congressional investigations into both formal and informal agreements between the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) and executive branch agencies, the deseret.com report noted. Such investigations, he suggested, could reveal potential collusions that undermine free speech and market competition.

“Second, Congress can itself stop engaging in violation of free speech principles,” Shapiro added, urging lawmakers to refrain from actions that could be construed as suppressing dissenting opinions. By ensuring that government entities respect and uphold free speech principles, Shapiro believes a more balanced and fair media landscape can be fostered.

During the hearing, Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wisc.) asked Shapiro to elaborate on the significance of advertising for media companies. Shapiro recounted the early days of the Daily Wire, noting its heavy reliance on advertising revenue to sustain and grow its operations, the deseret.com report said. Although the company has since diversified its revenue streams, primarily through a robust subscriber base, Shapiro expressed concern for new media startups.

He pointed out that partisan biases in advertising decisions could severely hinder the growth prospects of emerging media companies. “I worry about start-up companies that might be barred from receiving advertising revenue for partisan reasons,” Shapiro emphasized, as he highlighted the need for a level playing field in the advertising market.

The hearing also touched on broader political issues, with Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) questioning Shapiro about his support for Project 2025, a set of conservative policy proposals from The Heritage Foundation. The report on deseret.com noted that Shapiro responded with a blend of critique and humor, drawing a parallel to the fictional characters Peter Pan and Tinker Bell to comment on the Democrats’ focus on Project 2025.

Swalwell then shifted the discussion to specific policy areas, probing Shapiro’s views on reducing bureaucracy, immigration, the abortion pill, same-sex marriage, and social security. Shapiro’s responses illustrated his preference for less bureaucratic inefficiency, aligning momentarily with Swalwell on the need for government efficiency, according to the information in the deseret.com report. However, the exchange revealed deeper ideological divides on social and economic issues.

“I’m not sure why I’m testifying on immigration at this point,” Shapiro remarked, expressing his surprise at the line of questioning. He clarified his position, stating that while he does not support the deportation of individuals who are working and paying taxes, he does endorse deportations in cases where the benefits received from the government exceed the individual’s contributions, as was reported by deseret.com.

Shapiro’s nuanced perspective on immigration highlights a balance between compassion for productive immigrants and a concern for the economic impact of government benefits. This position aligns with a broader conservative viewpoint that seeks to ensure that immigration policies are fair and economically sustainable.

Swalwell also engaged Shapiro in a discussion on free speech, using a well-known analogy to illustrate his point. “You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater — and that’s a restriction on speech as you have recognized before — but you can yell theater in a crowded fire,” Swalwell stated, suggesting that the committee’s focus on certain issues might be misplaced, as was observed in the deseret.com report.

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) shifted the focus back to media fairness, questioning Shapiro about the standards imposed by GARM. Deseret.com also reported that Shapiro criticized these standards as vague and subjectively applied, arguing that they could be used to unfairly target and demonetize certain media outlets. Bishop’s inquiry highlighted concerns about the transparency and fairness of GARM’s practices, which have significant implications for media diversity and freedom.

The committee released a report on Wednesday, outlining its findings on GARM’s practices. The report accused large corporations, advertising agencies, and industry associations of participating in coordinated actions to demonetize platforms and content deemed unfavorable by GARM and its members, the deseret.com report indicated. This alleged collusion, according to the report, has the potential to eliminate a variety of content and viewpoints available to consumers.

The report provided specific examples of this alleged collusion, including discussions within GARM about blocking certain news outlets such as Fox News, The Daily Wire, and Breitbart News. The deseret.com report said that emails and statements from key figures such as John Montgomery (GroupM), Rob Rakowitz (GARM), and Joe Barone (GroupM) were included to substantiate these claims.

Montgomery’s email highlighted a strategic bias against politically divisive content, noting, “I don’t know Daily Wire that well, but I would imagine that most of our clients wouldn’t want to be on either side of politically divisive content, so they probably block them anyway. … If we block DW — why wouldn’t we (be) blocking Fox News?”

Barone’s comment further called attention to this bias, categorizing Daily Wire as a source of conspiracy theories and placing it on their Global High Risk exclusion list.

Dan Rakowitz, co-founder of GARM, expressed frustration in the report over what he described as “extreme global interpretations of the U.S. Constitution.” Deseret.com reported that he questioned the application of principles of governance based on laws established over two centuries ago by an exclusively white male cohort. This perspective highlights a contentious issue in contemporary media governance: the relevance and adaptability of historical constitutional principles to modern, global contexts. Rakowitz’s comments suggest a push within GARM to modernize the frameworks guiding media regulation, potentially at odds with traditional interpretations of free speech protections.

The report also detailed GARM’s collaboration with the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) in an effort to establish a system that directs advertising revenue exclusively to “legitimate news” sources. Indicated in the deseret.com report was that the GDI’s release of a list of the “riskiest sites” for disinformation, which included prominent conservative outlets such as the New York Post, Reason Magazine, RealClearPolitics, The Daily Wire, The Blaze, The American Conservative, The Federalist, and The American Spectator, highlights the clear cut bias in these initiatives.

Conversely, left-leaning sources such as BuzzFeed News and HuffPost were deemed “least risky,” raising questions about the criteria and objectivity of these assessments.

The report also touched on the controversial handling of the Hunter Biden laptop story, particularly in the context of Twitter’s censorship practices prior to Elon Musk’s acquisition of the platform. Unilever, a key player within GARM, reportedly expressed concerns about Musk’s efforts to expose the truth behind Twitter’s censorship actions, as was reported by deseret.com.  This episode focuses on the tension between corporate interests, media governance, and the public’s right to information.

The committee suggested that Unilever could have addressed these issues independently rather than through GARM, indicating a potential misuse of collective influence to shape media narratives.

The committee’s findings raise significant antitrust concerns, suggesting that GARM’s practices may constitute dangerous, anticompetitive behavior. By orchestrating boycotts and steering advertising revenue away from certain news outlets, GARM and its members could effectively suppress diverse viewpoints and limit market competition, the deseret.com report observed. The committee emphasized the need for ongoing oversight of GARM and a reassessment of existing antitrust laws to determine whether legislative reforms are necessary.

The hearing also featured insights from Herrish Patel, Christian Juhl, and Spencer Waller, each providing their perspectives on media trust and the dynamics of the advertising market,

Patel emphasized the importance of responsible advertising and the role of corporations in maintaining ethical standards, the deseret.com report indicated . He acknowledged the challenges posed by misinformation but underscored the need for a balanced approach that does not unduly censor legitimate discourse.

Juhl, representing one of the world’s largest media investment companies, discussed the complexities of managing advertising in a polarized environment. Deseret.com reported that he highlighted the efforts made by GroupM to ensure that advertising dollars support content that aligns with their values of responsibility and safety, while also navigating the fine line between content moderation and censorship.

Waller provided a legal perspective, examining the implications of GARM’s influence on market competition. The report on deseret.com said that he raised concerns about the potential for monopolistic practices and the impact on smaller media entities that struggle to compete without access to significant advertising revenue.

Below, please find the complete transcript of Ben Shapiro’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday;

“We’re in the midst of a trust crisis in the world of media, which is because so many in the legacy media have lied in order to preserve left-leaning narratives. To take just the most recent example, we were told by the legacy media that President Biden was just fine. For years, anyone who questioned his health and mental fitness was trafficking in cheap fakes. And then President Biden went out and engaged in a full-scale mental collapse on stage in front of hundreds of millions of people.

“So we can see why Americans, at least Americans who are not Democrats, do not trust the media. The question isn’t really why the legacy media have lost Americans’ trust. We know that answer. The question is why, despite that loss of trust, the legacy media continue to gain share in the advertising market. And the answer is simple. There is, in fact, an informal pressure system created by Democratic legislators, this White House, legacy media, advertisers, and pseudo-objective brand safety organizations. That system guarantees that advertising dollars flow only to left-wing media brands.

“Let me explain how this works. When a conservative competitor to the legacy media arises, members of that legacy media and their political allies rush to paint such competitors as dangerous. The commentator Kara Swisher of the New York Times, for example, told the head of YouTube that my videos at Daily Wire were a gateway drug that would lead children, including her own teenage son, to watch neo-Nazi content. Never mind the yarmulke.

“Elected Democrats pick up that same messaging. In 2017, Senator Dianne Feinstein told lawyers at Facebook, Google, and Twitter, ‘You created these platforms and now they’re being misused, and you have to be the ones to do something about it, or we will.’ Social media companies react to incentive structures, including threats. They have responded by adopting the standards of third-party, left-wing informational safety groups like the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, or GARM. GARM purportedly sets brand safety standards, objective standards by which advertisers and platforms can supposedly determine just what sort of content ought to be deemed safe for advertising.

“In reality, GARM acts as a cartel. Its members account for 90% of ad spending in the United States, almost a trillion dollars. In other words, if you’re not getting ad dollars from GARM members, it’s nearly impossible to run an ad-based business. And if you’re not following their preferred political narratives, the ones that Kara Swisher and Dianne Feinstein would follow, you will not be deemed brand safe. Your business will be throttled. We at Daily Wire have experienced this firsthand. In 2017, after Senator Feinstein made her threats to bring the weight of government down on social media platforms, the Daily Wire YouTube channel saw a 1000% increase in content enforcements over a two-year period. Since 2021, after Democrat officials further turned up the heat on social media companies, my personal Facebook page has seen an over 80% drop in impressions.

“Or take Joe Rogan. When Joe said that he had taken Ivermectin after getting COVID, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki pressured Spotify to take action, stating, ‘We want every platform to be doing more to call out missing disinformation while also uplifting accurate information.’ Spotify complied. Spotify, of course, works with GARM.

“So what are the brand safety standards that GARM uses? The standards begin with inarguable things that we’ve heard from the other witnesses, like preventing the distribution of child sexual abuse material or stopping terrorism. But GARM doesn’t draw the line at what is criminal, abusive, or dangerous. Their standards also include restrictions on hate speech, harassment, misinformation, or, my personal favorite, insensitive, irresponsible, and harmful treatment of debated, sensitive social issues. Those criteria are highly subjective in theory, and they are purely partisan in practice. For example, last year, Daily Wire host Matt Walsh was fully demonetized on YouTube, a GARM member. Why? For quote-unquote misgendering, which to GARM is to say that men are not women. Perfectly obvious facts now run afoul of GARM’s censorship standards.

“Companies targeted by GARM, like the Daily Wire, Breitbart, Fox News, and so many others, reach hundreds of millions of people with opinions and beliefs long established as within the mainstream of American conservative thought. GARM and its members have no respect for the beliefs of those people. They would like them marginalized or squashed. It’s time to stand up for the First Amendment in this Congress.

“Congress can do so in two ways. First, Congress must investigate the informal and perhaps formal arrangements between censorship cartels like GARM and executive branch agencies. The Daily Wire has already filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department for allegedly doing just this. Second, Congress can itself stop engaging in violation of free speech principles. Two weeks ago, writing a dissent in Murthy versus Missouri, Justice Alito condemned what he called sophisticated and coercive government campaigns against free speech.

“Members of this committee have engaged in precisely such campaigns. When Congressman Schiff speaks about targeting social media companies that must be, quote, ‘pulled and dragged into this era of corporate responsibility because they are too tolerant of misinformation,’ he knows what he is doing. He is participating in a sophisticated, coercive campaign against free speech. When Congresswoman Jayapal blames social media for placing America at the precipice of a democratic crisis and calls on them to target what they deem hate groups, she also knows what she is doing. She is participating in a sophisticated, coercive campaign against free speech. When Congressman Hank Johnson says, quote, ‘We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,’ he also knows what he is doing.

“We all know what these government actors, what some people in this room are doing. You’re using the tacit threat of government action to compel private companies to throttle viewpoints you don’t particularly like. The First Amendment was not designed to enable workarounds by elected officials. It was directed at Congress, at you. And you’re abdicating your fundamental duty when you exert pressure on private companies to censor speech. Some in this room have been doing just that for years. We in the non-legacy media have been feeling the effects. In the name of the Constitution and the name of democracy, this should stop.”