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.

 

[wardorican]

So, what does all this chatter about trump and twitter have to do with CNN and project veritas?

@Lazybones I reviewed two thirds of the videos, posted my thoughts. Didn't just use the source as a way to dismiss. I actively viewed, thought about and commented on what was going on. How come you aren't engaging in your thread about this topic? Why are you ignoring me?

Would you rather get into tangential semantics arguments with others or discuss your main topic?

Please let me know, so I don't waste more time giving this charge serious consideration.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Jeff Zucker still has a job. Just as I figured, nothing but another failed grift by the OG of grift.

Shocked I tell you, shocked!

 

[samiam5211]

I’m sorry if I haven’t given you the attention you require. I didn’t realize it was my job to respond exactly to what and when people want me to respond to. Lol

I will go find your post and comment.

it’s pretty much the only response that gave your OP any respect. Surprised you missed it.

 

[Lazybones]

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?

you spent a good amount of time dissecting the videos. It was good “unbiased entertainment”. Thanks you for your contribution.

I find it funny that your final paragraph somewhat negates all of your argument. You said they chase ratings. The videos showed the plan for them to chase ratings is to slam trump at every turn.

the whataboutism with Fox is cool and all, but nobody had ever made the argument that they are middle of the road or even close to center. CNN has always been touted as moderate and fair.

your bullet points are nice and give us a glimpse of your mindset, but your closing summed it up for project Veritas and really dismissed all of your prior work.

 

[Lazybones]

it’s pretty much the only response that gave your OP any respect. Surprised you missed it.

yeah it’s only the second or third most popular thread on the site. But you are right most of it is drivel.

 

[JRad]

CNN has always been touted as moderate

No, they absolutely have not been. Everyone (I believe) in this thread has said they have a left bias.

I’d include the “fair” part, but I don’t want to make assumptions about what you mean. If you mean how factual the reporting is, yes, CNN is considered fairly reliable.

 

[wardorican]

I’m sorry if I haven’t given you the attention you require. I didn’t realize it was my job to respond exactly to what and when people want me to respond to. Lol

I will go find your post and comment.

I think it's fair to point out that it looked like you'd rather take the easy arguments than actually discuss the substance of the OP and PV's "bombshell" charge. I do believe there was some complaining about "attacking the source", vs the issue at hand. I thought you'd welcome the discussion.

 

[wardorican]

yeah it’s only the second or third most popular thread on the site. But you are right most of it is drivel.

So, you're saying high ratings means something can't be drivel? Or that is must be true, and worthy of discussion?

Maybe this thread is an example of many of our issues with the Media (all media), chasing ratings and using baiting headlines to get clicks. Maybe our need to fight and over react is the reason we have crappy news.

 

[wardorican]

you spent a good amount of time dissecting the videos. It was good “unbiased entertainment”. Thanks you for your contribution.

I find it funny that your final paragraph somewhat negates all of your argument. You said they chase ratings. The videos showed the plan for them to chase ratings is to slam trump at every turn.

the whataboutism with Fox is cool and all, but nobody had ever made the argument that they are middle of the road or even close to center. CNN has always been touted as moderate and fair.

your bullet points are nice and give us a glimpse of your mindset, but your closing summed it up for project Veritas and really dismissed all of your prior work.

Yes, they chase ratings, like most other news organizations. I don't see what the big expose was. The president dominates the news coverage anyway. He talked about shooting migrants in the leg and a moat with snakes and alligators in it. I mean.. wut?!?!?! Of course, that's going to get a reaction.

An American President having impeachment inquiry's is major news. So, them chasing that story isn't bias. It's just the biggest news of the month. I mean, the only other two huge news items is Brexit and the US-China trade negotiations. Then when a huge hurricane comes, they'll cover that for a while.

So, again, I don't see the big reveal that PV did. Nothing really shocked me that much. And, outside of factually talking about their news reports, no one has said that CNN isn't biased. However, they are factual, minus the commentators (which every news organization has issues with).

Fox themselves say they're unbiased.. .they're the ones "exposing" the Mainstream Media, and "thank God for Fox to give us the truth."

 

[Lazybones]

So, you're saying high ratings means something can't be drivel? Or that is must be true, and worthy of discussion?

Maybe this thread is an example of many of our issues with the Media (all media), chasing ratings and using baiting headlines to get clicks. Maybe our need to fight and over react is the reason we have crappy news.

of course it’s the reason we have crappy news. The thread is full of Project Veritas sucks and are liars. (This is the drivel I referred to). And almost unanimously, the same posters say that CNN of course is biased to the left and this is something that everyone knows.

So which is it? I would think those against this article would pick one strategy or the other.

1. project Veritas sucks

or

2. everyone already knows that they are reporting so it’s not unique.

when you use both arguments together, they cancel each other out and comes off as blindly partisan.

 

[samiam5211]

when you use both arguments together, they cancel each other out and comes off as blindly partisan.

Project Veritas sucks and should never be given any respect.

CNN is biased towards sensationalism.

I really don't understand why you think those two points are mutually exclusive.

 

[Lazybones]

Project Veritas sucks and should never be given any respect.

CNN is biased towards sensationalism.

I really don't understand why you think those two points are mutually exclusive.

they aren’t mutually exclusive, but they were correct in the reporting of CNN being a biased toward the left

I really don’t understand why the left doesn’t leave it at that.

 

[Intensesaint]

Project Veritas sucks and should never be given any respect.

CNN is biased towards sensationalism.

I really don't understand why you think those two points are mutually exclusive.

So being being left biased is the same and being sensationalist?

 

[Lazybones]

So being being left biased is the same and being sensationalist?

Sensationalism isn’t lies unless it’s Fox. The left only uses sensationalism to get you to click on the article that is 100% factual. The news is factual, just the commentators and headlines are biased.
Come on man, you have been told this throughout this thread.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Sensationalism isn’t lies unless it’s Fox. The left only uses sensationalism to get you to click on the article that is 100% factual. The news is factual, just the commentators and headlines are biased.
Come on man, you have been told this throughout this thread.

Again with the implications that CNN makes things up. You have been asked to prove that on more than one occasion, yet you haven't. At the same time, you are ignoring the lies of Project Veritas to support an incorrect position. It's mind blowing how dedicated you are to defending the indefensible. I even put together a brief history, from this thread:

This is post 70. You asked someone else to go back and forth on truths vs lies put out by Project Veritas. You used their attempted takedown of CNN (the one that started this thread) as your first truth.

lets go 1 for 1. I gave you a truth that was put out, now you provide a lie. Then we can go back and forth and see who runs our first.

The cool thing will be to debate if what we put out is a lie or truth. I’m starting out pretty good with a unanimous truth on this issue. Your turn.

This is post 92, where I provided a lie for you to read and instructions on how to do so even though it's behind a paywall.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html

Right click and open the link in a private window if the paywall stops you.

As of this moment, you have still not engaged in any discussion regarding the thing you asked someone to provide.

This is post 86, where you make the assertion that CNN is willing to make up lies.

CNN is a left wing biased media source willing to make up lies about the president.

When I asked for proof, you respond with this in post 94.

We can start with post 9 in this thread from jrad, post 11 from wars and 16 from crosswatt. That is just page 1

I asked for clarification in posts 95 and 100 (both unquoted here but still can be found, unedited, in this thread). You have still refused to provide clarification.

None of this takes into account other things, such as your dismissive attitude when more than one person pointed out that you refuse to engage in good faith.

Edit: I fixed a typo.

 

[JRad]

Project Veritas sucks on the whole
CNN is left bias
CNN is regarded as fairly factual
Fox is right bias
Fox is not regarded as very factual

None of these things have to be related.

 

[Lazybones]

Again with the implications that CNN makes things up. You have been asked to prove that on more than one occasion, yet you haven't. At the same time, you are ignoring the lies of Project Veritas to support an incorrect position. It's mind blowing how dedicated you are to defending the indefensible. I even put together a brief history, from this thread:

This is post 70. You asked someone else to go back and forth on truths vs lies put out by Project Veritas. You used their attempted takedown of CNN (the one that started this thread) as your first truth.



This is post 92, where I provided a lie for you to read and instructions on how to do so even though it's behind a paywall.



As of this moment, you have still not engaged in any discussion regarding the thing you asked someone to provide.

This is post 86, where you make the assertion that CNN is willing to make up lies.



When I asked for proof, you respond with this in post 94.



I asked for clarification in posts 95 and 100 (both unquoted here but still can be found, unedited, in this thread). You have still refused to provide clarification.

None of this takes into account other things, such as your dismissive attitude when more than one person pointed out that you refuse to engage in good faith.

Edit: I fixed a typo.

holy smokes, I give a little attention to the other guy and now you demand attention as well. Just as a reminder, I don’t work for anyone on this board and im not married to anyone on this board, so therefore I don’t have to do a dog any pony show anytime one of you ask.
However, I will respond back to you when I have time to go back and look.
And the tet de tet was with MT15, but I will play with you, no problem.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

holy smokes, I give a little attention to the other guy and now you demand attention as well. Just as a reminder, I don’t work for anyone on this board and im not married to anyone on this board, so therefore I don’t have to do a dog any pony show anytime one of you ask.
However, I will respond back to you when I have time to go back and look.
And the tet de tat was with MT15, but I will play with you, no problem.

This isn't a game. You posted this topic, then refused to engage in good faith when people took the time to respond. Your response here is just more of the same. This is the kind of crap that was to be avoided here. It's pathetic.