Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

International

Study shows ‘X’ suppresses conservative media despite Elon Musk’s pledge to ‘investigate’ bias

Published

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

The Media Research Center (MRC) Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider believes these ‘shocking’ findings are evidence that there is ‘a radical remnant within X fighting against Elon Musk.’

A recent study shows that the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) disproportionately suppresses conservative media content and elevates left-leaning voices despite owner Elon Musk’s pledge in May to “investigate” this bias.

Media Research Center (MRC) published on Friday the results of a study into how content on X is boosted and suppressed. Remarkably, MRC found that nearly 74 percent of the right-leaning media outlets it reviewed were de-boosted, with considerably lower scores than left-leaning outlets.

By contrast,  MRC found that “an overwhelming majority of the left-leaning media outlets” have “highly favorable” visibility scores.

A researcher on X known as “@The1Parzival” determined how each social media account was scored by prompting the Musk-owned AI chatbot Grok with questions that revealed how they were ranked on the “backend” of X. The resulting data, shared with MRC, showed that four metrics shape an account’s “visibility” score: “Mass Appeal” (diversity of followers), “Reputation” (purported reliability), “Toxicity” (potentially offensive content or perceived harmfulness), and “Follower” (follower retention).

Using the ratings firm AllSides’ classification of media outlets by their “perceived” ideological bias on left-to-right scale, MRC found that X gave left-leaning media outlets an average visibility score of 82.64 out of 100, while right-leaning outlets received an average score of 63.56.

This difference has powerful consequences. Grok told MRC that a score of 65 out of 100 on reputation alone, for example, is the “minimum” required for an X account to be recommended on its feed. In addition, generally speaking, the higher an account’s score is, the greater is its reach and viewership on X.

Media outlets classified as right-leaning in MRC’s review included The Washington Times, The Federalist, Fox News, The Daily Wire, Blaze Media and The Daily Caller.

The Grok-acquired data further found that “a staggering 100 percent of left-leaning media outlets are assigned favorable ‘reputation’ scores by X’s employees,” and that these leftist outlets were assigned an average toxicity score of 26.33, compared to an average 47.60 score for right-leaning media outlets (a 21-point difference).

Left-leaning accounts with low toxicity scores included The New York Times (10/100) and MSNBC (20/100), which regularly features extraordinarily divisive content, such as the claim that those who believe rights come from God are “Christian nationalists” (a derogatory term in their usage), and the claim that children do not belong to their parents, but to “whole communities.”

READ: UK gov’t official says people will be arrested for sharing posts that could incite ‘racial hatred’

U.S. Senator for Utah Mike Lee wrote on May 23, 2024, “How long will it take to get rid of the stage-five clingers at X—those who still periodically throttle conservatives?”

Musk replied, “Well, neither conservative [sic] nor progressives should be throttled. The point is to have an even playing field. I will investigate.”

The X CEO’s power over his platform’s algorithm is confirmed by February reports from X employees that Musk called an “all hands on deck” meeting to boost his own posts when he found that a Super Bowl tweet from Joe Biden garnered much more reach than his own.

Documents were shared with Business Insider showing that the “stated goal” of the meeting was to determine “why engagement” with Biden and Musk’s posts were different. The documents included a “snapshot of Twitter’s code that showed Musk’s tweets were being boosted.”

At the time, Platformer reported, “After his Super Bowl tweet did worse numbers than President Biden’s, Twitter’s CEO ordered major changes to the algorithm.”

Musk has repeatedly voiced a commitment to “free speech” and acknowledged the importance of Twitter/X’s adherence to this principle. He wrote on his platform in 2022, “Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy. Do you believe Twitter rigorously adheres to this principle?” He followed that up by asking: “Given that Twitter serves as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy. What should be done?”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Crime

France stunned after thieves loot Louvre of Napoleon’s crown jewels

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

In one of the boldest art crimes in modern French history, a team of masked thieves struck the Louvre Museum in Paris early Sunday, stealing a collection of jewels once belonging to Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. According to French media, the heist unfolded in just ten minutes — between 9:30 and 9:40 a.m. — as three men disguised as construction workers used a mechanical lift and power tools to access a second-floor balcony of the Apollon Gallery, home to some of France’s most treasured artifacts. Police say the burglars shattered a window, smashed glass display cases, and fled on two motor scooters through the heart of Paris as panicked tourists watched officers flood the museum courtyard. Investigators said the group made off with at least nine pieces, including a necklace, brooch, and tiara tied to Napoleon’s imperial court, though forensic teams are still confirming the exact inventory and value. One damaged crown — believed to have belonged to Napoleon’s wife, Empress Eugénie — was later found discarded near the gallery. The French Interior Ministry called the theft “an intolerable attack on our national heritage,” adding that while the jewels’ market value can be calculated, “their historical significance is beyond measure.”

Authorities are investigating whether the mechanical lift used in the break-in was part of ongoing renovation work at the site, a potential inside assist that could explain how the thieves breached the museum so efficiently. “The suspects appeared to know exactly where they were going,” one investigator told ABC News, noting that the men wore construction vests and hoods to blend in with workers already on site. One suspect reportedly stood guard outside as the others executed the theft with surgical precision. No injuries were reported and no firearms were used, but the crime has rattled both the museum and the French government.

Jordan Bardella, president of France’s right-wing National Rally party, called the episode “a humiliation for our country” and “proof of the state’s decay.” Writing on X, he said, “The Louvre is a global symbol of our culture. This heist, which allowed thieves to steal the Crown Jewels of France, is an intolerable humiliation for our country. How far will the decay of the state go?” The Louvre — which houses masterpieces such as the “Mona Lisa” and the “Venus de Milo” — attracts nearly nine million visitors a year, making it the most visited museum in the world. Yet the theft comes amid growing turmoil inside the institution. Over the summer, staff staged a mass walkout over overcrowding, understaffing, and what unions called a “collapse in basic security.”

Police now fear the stolen artifacts could be melted down or dismantled to erase their trace, destroying centuries of French history in the process. “The risk is that some of the diamonds could be sold individually, which would make reconstituting the jewels nearly impossible,” a source close to the investigation told Le Parisien. As forensic teams comb through security footage and question contractors, France is once again confronting a painful reality — that even in the heart of Paris, its most sacred treasures are not immune to the growing sense of disorder plaguing the country.

Continue Reading

espionage

“Suitcase of Cash” and Secret Meeting Deepen Britain’s Beijing Espionage Crisis

Published on

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

Britain’s most consequential espionage scandal in a generation has narrowed on Keir Starmer’s inner cabinet after The Sunday Times revealed that alleged Chinese agent Christopher Berry was intercepted at Heathrow Airport with a “suitcase full of cash” — and that senior officials, including National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell and Cabinet Secretary Christopher Wormald, held a closed-door meeting, allegedly discussing that advancing the case would harm relations with Beijing, weeks before prosecutors abandoned the insider-threat file.

The revelations, combined with an explosive Opposition letter from Kemi Badenoch and a rare diplomatic intervention from Washington, have plunged Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government into the most serious national-security controversy of its tenure — one now shaking both Westminster and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. Not since the Kim Philby affair and the exposure of the Cambridge Spy Ring has a British government been so roiled by allegations of insider compromise and appeasement toward a hostile foreign state.

As The Sunday Times reported, Christopher Berry — a 33-year-old academic from Oxfordshire — was stopped under the Terrorism and Border Security Act after a February 2023 flight from China. Police seized £4,000 in cash, believed to have been supplied by his Chinese handler, codenamed “Alex,” linked to the Ministry of State Security.

A witness statement tabled in Parliament last week indicated that Berry funnelled real-time political intelligence through his MSS handler to one of Beijing’s senior leaders, all collected from a former Chinese teaching colleague — a Parliamentary researcher with deep access to senior Conservative MPs. Beijing reportedly viewed those MPs as a strategic threat, fearing that if they rose to higher office they would adopt a far stricter stance toward China’s geopolitical ambitions.

Though Berry was not detained at the time, the incident became central to the espionage case later dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service when the Starmer government declined to certify that China posed an “ongoing threat to national security” — a legal requirement under the Official Secrets Act.

The Sunday Times also revealed that Deputy National Security Adviser Matthew Collins, the government’s sole witness, privately acknowledged that the decision not to describe China as an “ongoing threat” was “political.” The paper further disclosed that Jonathan Powell — a former banking executive who rose to become Starmer’s National Security Adviser — chaired a meeting on September 1 attended by Cabinet Secretary Christopher Wormald and MI5 Director-General Sir Ken McCallum, in which “the general theme of discussion was how the UK’s relationship with China was going to be damaged by this case.”

If accurate, that account directly contradicts Starmer’s assurance to Parliament that “no minister or special adviser was involved.” The implication — that Britain’s most senior national-security officials were weighing diplomatic consequences while an active espionage prosecution was still underway — has intensified accusations that the case was derailed by political interference rather than evidentiary weakness.

Within hours of the Sunday Times story, Opposition Leader Kemi Badenoch posted a letter to X accusing Keir Starmer of misleading Parliament and concealing ministerial involvement in the case’s collapse.

Framing the letter, Badenoch sought to explain the rapidly evolving affair to a wider audience. “I don’t blame you if you’ve struggled to follow the China spying case engulfing Parliament. Even MPs are finding it hard to keep up with a story that seems to change by the hour,” she wrote. “I suspect many fair-minded people have assumed this story can’t contain much. It seems too implausible for the government to have deliberately let off people who were accused of spying on MPs. But the story is truly astonishing. The layers of it have unravelled over the past few weeks like something from a spy novel.”

In the letter itself, Badenoch demands full disclosure of all correspondence, meetings, and witness-statement revisions involving Jonathan Powell, the Attorney General, or the Cabinet Office. She references the Sunday Times account directly, noting that “Powell left attendees with the understanding that Deputy National Security Adviser Collins’s witness statement would operate within the language of the report,” implying foreknowledge and coordination between Downing Street and prosecutors. She further alleges that Starmer’s ministers “softened” later witness statements to downplay Chinese espionage, replacing hard intelligence assessments with diplomatic phrasing designed to reassure Beijing. Her conclusion is cutting: “You have shown Britain is weak in the face of espionage, and have emboldened our enemies to believe they can spy on us with impunity.”

As reported previously by The Bureau, the controversy has now drawn international concern. The Chair of the U.S. House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, John Moolenaar, has issued an extraordinary public rebuke on the court matter — a move almost without precedent between close allies. In a two-page letter dated October 16, 2025, addressed to James Roscoe, chargé d’affaires at the British Embassy in Washington, Moolenaar warned that Britain’s decision to abandon the prosecution risked setting “a dangerous precedent that foreign adversaries can target democratically elected legislators with impunity.” He wrote that the decision “deeply troubles” U.S. lawmakers and “undermines Five Eyes security coordination,” given the substantial amount of evidence against Berry and Christopher Cash, who were accused of funnelling parliamentary intelligence to the Chinese Communist Party.

“I hope the UK government will not allow this case to falter,” Moolenaar said, “and will instead take the steps necessary to ensure that both justice and due process are served.”

The letter, co-signed by senior members of the Committee and publicly released by Congress, marks an exceptional public intervention in a live national-security case involving a Five Eyes partner. Moolenaar added that the decision to drop the prosecution — despite evidence confirming a direct intelligence channel from Westminster to Beijing — “paints a concerning picture,” noting the resumption of high-level UK–China trade talks, negotiations over China’s proposed “super embassy” in London, and London’s ongoing review of its diplomatic posture toward Beijing. “Allowing this PRC aggression to go unchecked,” he warned, “would only incentivize the CCP to further interfere in Western democracies.”

As The Bureau previously detailed, Matthew Collins’s witness statement traced an intelligence pipeline connecting Westminster directly to Beijing’s leadership. Berry, via his handler “Alex,” transmitted reports obtained from Christopher Cash, a parliamentary aide with access to Conservative MPs critical of Beijing. Collins confirmed that some of the same intelligence later appeared in the possession of a senior CCP Politburo Standing Committee member — reportedly Cai Qi, one of Xi Jinping’s closest allies. Collins also documented Beijing’s targeted inquiries into the 2022 Conservative leadership race, focusing on Tom Tugendhat and Neil O’Brien, both members of the China Research Group (CRG) and long-standing critics of the CCP.

Taken together, the Heathrow cash seizure, the Powell-chaired meeting, the Badenoch letter, and the U.S. congressional intervention point to a modern Cold War crisis — a confrontation that has now moved beyond Westminster to test the cohesion of the Western alliance itself.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Trending

X