CNN whistleblower (1 Viewer)

[Lazybones]

I am seeing some articles about a CNN whistleblower. My sources are only one sided, so I am a little skeptical of the validity.
However, apparently project Veritas has a whistleblower who wore a hidden camera to work.
The accusation is that CNN has been running their news with a tad of bias. (No surprise here for some of us) We will see how this plays out.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Excellent, excellent post @wardorican .

You can't double like a post so I'll just like the post that likes the post that deserves the double like.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You can't double like a post so I'll just like the post that likes the post that deserves the double like.

You can't triple like a post so I'll just- nevermind.

 

[wardorican]

Some comedic examples from yesteryear. Stewart criticizing fox. Just to remember how he is in general.



Now, on to CNN



Anderson Cooper has an accurate, humble, and succinct assessment of the situation, then CNN goes full CNN..



Not in love with the O'Reilly stuff at the end, but the first 1:45 is the daily show. Couldn't find it by its self..



Some NSFW language..

 

[Ayo]

The takeaway isn’t that PV provided anything more than once again doctoring footage to show a low-level contractor with a bone to pick recording a normal conversation at cable news and entertainment network. They played it up as explosive but it’s not. They played it up as scandalous but it’s not. They labeled it whistleblower but there’s nothing illegal or untowards in the video. Again, it’s PV acting as if they are covering a huge newsworthy event or events but showing nothing but their propensity for self-aggrandizement.

yea, this is pretty much what it is and what it was only ever going to be. PV has a reputation for conducting itself a certain way and it should not be surprising when they conduct themselves in the way they routinely have. They are propagandists.

Since this conversation has gotten a bit of the rails, due to the source (who has a history of making up crap, and selectively editing it to make it look worse), I'm just going to watch the videos and make some comments and observations.

1. The satellite uplink contractor who wore the video, gave his opinion that the CNN president has a vendetta against Trump. No proof. No quote. Just an opinion statement.

2. The "media created this monster" is probably correct. Trump has always loved his name in the media, and uses the negative attention to his benefit. We've all said as much. This is not a revelation. And it is also someone else's opinion. if they wanted to counteract that, they'd just stop reporting on him.

3. The comment about Lindsey Graham.. the president of CNN is basically saying, don't let your personal friendships/relationships with him, get in the way of calling him out (my guess is on that old youtube clip of him talking about impeachment during the Clinton years). There is nothing wrong with telling news people to not let their personal bias get in the way of pointing out a pretty obvious hypocritical position. It's what they do to all politicians. (I'm assuming the bit on why they were talking about Graham, but I'm probably not far off).

4. Zucker calling Fox News fake news and a propaganda machine isn't exactly inaccurate. Especially their Opinion shows, which dominate the 'Fox News' lineup. They have been called a propaganda machine for over a decade.

5. The whistle blowers stated motive... Wanting news to be what it was, not chasing ratings, etc. I think we all want that. CNN does chase shiny things. Been the joke for over a decade. I'll post some examples of that later. His point was to make everyone aware. Well, most are. A lot of TV news is trash. So, I still find myself asking.. "where's the beef". I believe we had a thread a while back saying, if you want better media, stop clicking on crappy, baiting links. They're just following the $$$$ to keep in operation. No one really wants factual news, it's too boring.

6. Don't loose sight on what the biggest story is, "Impeachment". Well, duh, isn't it a huge story? Pretty rare event. It's not just talk about it, it's movement towards it. It's been a significant month. Now, if this was from 2.5 years ago, different story, but this all seems like recent examples.

7. That first VP... very edited. Only the one partial sentence talking about the second whistle blower fortifying the complaint, but without the lead in or discussion afterwards to give context. Second VP, the story being how other Republicans are defiant or silent on the matter. Well, it is. Hold power to task for not responding to things. These are all basic journalism things. Again, so far only using recent examples, of a major story to justify long time bias? I'm waiting for older stuff...

7b.. also.. imagine what the Fox News 9am call is like. Especially when Ailes was running it. How about NBC? CBS? ABC? What is a counter extreme version and what's "normal"? Let's put this all in context.

8. Nothing better than being at the bar griping about the boss. haha, we all do that. I'm sure Zucker hates Trump to some degree. I'm sure working together at NBC wasn't wonderful.

9. Still lots of opinions, but that Media Coordinator is likely right.. chasing ratings. When media companies and news broadcasts became profit centers, vs profit losses for a network, shiny things took over. I thought his part was the most accurate and fair. Honest people reporting the facts, but also having to fit in with making profits. So, the coverage bias is there (we all stated that), and the silly crap they do, like the pulling names out of a hat game show looking deal, was to "attract viewers". I'd imagine Fox News, MSNBC, and others do the same. You think Fox News complaining about the Left or Obama/Clinton on a near daily basis is for another other than ratings and propaganda?

10. Ha, Trump isn't a saavy business man, not a good one, but sneaky. Sneaky bullying. Yup, that seems to be true. Otherwise, another person stating the obvious, "media created the Trump monster".

11. The people at CNN were in shock of the election.. Yeah, so was about 52% of America. That's not new. Heck, SNL did a great bit about that with Chappelle. Funny stuff.

Programming note, I'm 13 minutes into the first video.. man.. this is tough sledding.

12. First clear example of the "journalist" baiting the random CNN guy into a sound byte by making a joke (Anti-Trump Crusade), and having the guy "fill in the blank". The guy could simply be saying what he thought he "journalist" was saying... then it cuts off, before you can get his actual reaction to that. First real clear example of Project Veritas manipulating information. After that, it's "Project Veritas" speaking about what that guy thought, not actually using their words. I wouldn't believe any of that.

13. Repeating stuff from earlier.

14. Don Lemon being blatantly left. Yup. They say be honest about it. I'm not sure if he is or isn't, since I don't watch much CNN. But, Hannity is clearly a conservative? Does he state this? Does he state he's objective or not? I guess I'm unsure there too. But I always felt like he was trying to pretend he's objective as well. If people can't see bias for themselves in editorials, then that's on them.

15. Why did the guy want to quit? I do respect the idea that the guy wants actual fair and balanced news. The issue is chasing profits. The news part is factual and accurate. The opinions, headlines, guest and host opinions, is well.. kinda crappy. Has been for years. I mean, the Daily show used to almost run a daily "CNN" joke.

2nd video..

16. is it really exposing anything to say they want to cover the top runners in the democratic debates more than the low polling folks? And that was still someone's opinion, who just works in the room. Picking winners and losers? No. .they're giving coverage to the ones who are highest in the polls. Duh, chasing ratings.

17. Oh, look at that bias.. Zucker once donated to Kamala Harris, also likes Pete.. Likes Warren.. and Biden... and he's, wait for it.. open to most of the democrats, hasn't seemingly decided who he wants to win.

Ok, my kid wants to get on the computer. I'm going to end it here for now. But, I'm not seeing some big deal here, based on me listening to this.

I think the bit on Yang was unfairly characterized. Zucker is making sure they give enough attention to Yang, do they need to devote more time. And the Politics VP is like, heck yeah, he's resonating, we should take them all seriously, especially when they have surges. Saw nothing that made it sound like Zucker wanted to downplay that. Again, more of the "Journalist" trying to push comments on specific charges.. like Yang being mad at CNN. Didn't get the same soundbyte like the first one.

Here's the truth.. They don't chase what's the best news, they chase ratings. Yup, been saying that for years. A Biden rally would be boring, no one would watch. Yup.

Where's the beef? So far, about a half hour into this, what is the huge charge? What's the damning evidence? What is new?

This is a great post.

but it would be nice if people did their own homework, too

 

[wardorican]

Not sure if I have the energy or time to view the third video, but I'll try later.

 

[Lazybones]

I gave you Daniel Dale's twitter. Twice.

Last night, Dale chronicled 26 lies (I arrived at this number by counting tweets he made while fact checking, in real time, last night's rally) Trump told in 80 minutes. A couple of these are based on things that might still happen, possibly, but have not happened yet. Even disgregarding those, he's at a cool two dozen.

This was last night. You don't even have to go back a week.

If you *still* aren't seeing it, it's because you don't want to

ok. I’m giving up on trump lying on Twitter. Whoever posted that he lies 10-20 times a day on Twitter must have modified their post as I can’t find the original.
I will mark that up to being hyperbolic about trump and his Twitter use.

 

[LA - L.A.]

ok. I’m giving up on trump lying on Twitter. Whoever posted that he lies 10-20 times a day on Twitter must have modified their post as I can’t find the original.
I will mark that up to being hyperbolic about trump and his Twitter use.

If you quoted the original post when you first replied to them, then you have a record of the original post that that can't be edited by the poster. You might want to reconsider the accusation you just made and consider that maybe you were mistaken about what you thought some one said.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

no. They know who they are. You are correct, I should have quoted the post.

Was it said in this thread or another? I’ll help you find what you’re looking for.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

no. They know who they are. You are correct, I should have quoted the post.

I went ahead and looked it up for you. If someone edited their post, it would have the word “edited”at the bottom. The person that you say made this claim did not edit the post you referenced. Perhaps you just misunderstood the claim.

 

[Lazybones]

Was it said in this thread or another? I’ll help you find what you’re looking for.

thanks man. I really don’t know. I thought it was here or the fake literacy thread. I went back page by page, but don’t see it. I Actually haven’t figured out the best way to sort and filter. Doing it from my phone is a little cumbersome.

 

[Lazybones]

I went ahead and looked it up for you. If someone edited their post, it would have the word “edited”at the bottom. The person that you say made this claim did not edit the post you referenced. Perhaps you just misunderstood the claim.

i didn’t think about the last edit. I will look. No I didn’t misunderstand. It was 100% said by a (hint) new friend of mine.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

i didn’t think about the last edit. I will look. No I didn’t misunderstand. It was 100% said by a (hint) new friend of mine.

You mentioned the poster in question by name. That poster is the only one to mention a figure of 13 lies per day. That poster did not say that these lies were confined to Twitter and did not edit their post.

Perhaps you should rethink your understanding of what was said.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

thanks man. I really don’t know. I thought it was here or the fake literacy thread. I went back page by page, but don’t see it. I Actually haven’t figured out the best way to sort and filter. Doing it from my phone is a little cumbersome.

Speaking of the Media Literacy thread, did you see the information I left for you? I think it would help you see the points everyone is making that you seem to not see.

 

[Lazybones]

You mentioned the poster in question by name. That poster is the only one to mention a figure of 13 lies per day. That poster did not say that these lies were confined to Twitter and did not edit their post.

Perhaps you should rethink your understanding of what was said.

it wasn’t ayo. That was an extension of our conversation.

 

[Lazybones]

Speaking of the Media Literacy thread, did you see the information I left for you? I think it would help you see the points everyone is making that you seem to not see.

you linked the trump tweets that are lies? I saw the one about Obama not funding something As much as trump is.

I’m not interested in others opinion of what he says I want to review for myself. Also, the conversation was about Twitter. Not speeches or rally’s. There is a huge difference.

Removing trump from twitter was a topic at the last debate.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

you linked the trump tweets that are lies? I saw the one about Obama not funding something As much as trump is.

I’m not interested in others opinion of what he says I want to review for myself. Also, the conversation was about Twitter. Not speeches or rally’s. There is a huge difference.

Removing trump from twitter was a topic at the last debate.

I never once said anything about Trump and Twitter. You made ae t about fact checking the fact checkers. I gave an example of how you can do it yourself.

Also, you are completely misrepresenting what was said. I provided you a quote from the transcript of the speech. Trump did not say Obama spent less. He said Obama did not spend, period.

Why are you not willing to read things for yourself? The information is readily available, yet you continue to shift the goalposts.

 

[Lazybones]

I never once said anything about Trump and Twitter. You made ae t about fact checking the fact checkers. I gave an example of how you can do it yourself.

Also, you are completely misrepresenting what was said. I provided you a quote from the transcript of the speech. Trump did not say Obama spent less. He said Obama did not spend, period.

Why are you not willing to read things for yourself? The information is readily available, yet you continue to shift the goalposts.

slow down Francis, I was paraphrasing for reference that I read what you posted. I’m not shifting the goal post. Gosh, why so argumentative?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

slow down Francis, I was paraphrasing for reference that I read what you posted. I’m not shifting the goal post. Gosh, why so argumentative?

Why so dismissive and condescending? Why can’t you actually answer the question at hand?