Hilarious. The headline pre-supposes Twitter is a platform for free speech.

It asserts that prior control of Twitter by billionaire Jack Dorsey was fine (or Jeff Bezos ownership of The Washington Post is fine), but Musk’s ownership would mark the end of free speech – even though he suggests he’s buying it specifically remove Twitter’s well-known censorship.

Source: What would happen to free speech if Elon Musk bought Twitter? : NPR

And then there are Facebook and Instagram, also owned by a billionaire.

But Musk is the evil one? NPR’s expert argues allowing all First Amendment protected speech on Twitter would destroy Twitter …

And hysterical:

There’s very strong kind of professionalized norms in journalism that split business and editorial.

Having lived in a city where the regional news monopoly’s owner sat in on daily editorial meetings selecting the day’s news – and influencing coverage that affected the owner’s other business deals – this assertion is laughable and out of touch.

Ultimately, this argument over Musk buying Twitter is political in nature. Musk is notorious for speaking his mind and expressing viewpoints going against “conventional wisdom” (as it was once called). Journalists seem to see him as opposing their political viewpoints and seemingly prefer to be on a platform that has a reputation for removing viewpoints that may oppose their own.