CNN Liberal? LOL!!!!

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
Explain this...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3H3gND4M9HA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3H3gND4M9HA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>​
 
Knuckle Dragging Neandertals!?!!!!? I LOVE IT.

The sad thing is, if I didnt know who this guy was and was just tuning in, I would of assumed he was a Republican right off the bat. He's using their own tactics against them and I aint got a thing negative to say about it.
 
Really neutral interview. Four and a half against one. Ever seen a republican against those odds on any news show?
 
source: Think Progress

After Castellanos controversy, CNN vows to be ‘vigilant’ in the future about disclosing conflicts of interest.

cnncastellanos1.jpg

This morning, the Plum Line’s Greg Sargent confirmed CNN contributor Alex Castellanos’ political consulting firm, National Media, is the ad buyer for the insurance industry group America’s Health Insurance Plan’s (AHIP) new ad blitz attacking Democratic health reform plans. ThinkProgress also reported that Castellanos has received four payments totaling $434,336 from the Republican National Committee for media work since July. In response to the mounting criticism, CNN vowed to be “vigilant” in the future. CNN political director Sam Feist sent the following statement to Sargent:

“Not only has CNN identified Alex Castellanos as working on behalf of the Republican Party and on behalf of health care clients, the network is proud of its practice of disclosing relevant information about its contributors and guests. CNN will be vigilant in our efforts to ensure both their affiliations and potential conflicts of interest are cited when contributors appear on our air.”

The policy of full disclosure should extend to other CNN pundits, including Frank Donatelli, a GOP lobbyist who represents Blue Cross Blue Shield.
 
I totally agree with full disclosure of ALL political and pecuniary conflicts -- whether it be contributors like Alex Castellanos or Roland Martin, or reporters and anchors. But most of all, full disclosure from those whose business it is to offer opinion.

QueEx
 
Now you can understand why CNN refused to air the commercial below. How can a so called 'News' organization inform the public about critical issues when the corporate edict is part and parcel of their daily fuctions?

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ULKJiRv-Lnk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ULKJiRv-Lnk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>​
 
I see that Lou Dobbs has departed CNN. What effect, if any, would that have on the "Liberal Label" and CNN ? ? ?
 
CNN Liberal? Yea, Right!

I wish the media would stop giving this guy softball interviews.

source: Huffington Post


CNN Regrets Not Asking John McCain A Follow-Up Question


So, over the weekend, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) went on CNN's "State Of The Union", where he talked about the need for "regime change" in North Korea. John McCain is always doing things like this! During the 2008 campaign, he wanted to bomb Iran, liberate the teensy region of South Ossetia from the Russians, and was even angry at Spain for some reason. And one often wonders, "Where, exactly, are we going to get the troops and/or money to do these things? Or is the hope that somehow, the Green Lantern Corps will kit out McCain with a power ring?"

In the case of North Korea, if you dial back the interview, you'll see that in this instance, McCain puts the onus for changing the regime in Pyongyang on China. "They could bring the North Korean economy to its knees if they wanted to," said McCain, who went on to muse, "And I cannot believe that the Chinese should, in a mature fashion, not find it in their interest to restrain North Korea. So far, they are not."

But if not China, where does this leave this dream of regime change in North Korea? As you might expect, CNN had to "leave it there." And that sets up my favorite read out of the CNN-McCain tete-a-tete, courtesy of Evan McMorris-Santoro:
Though [State Of The Union host Candy] Crowley moved the interview ahead to Afghanistan shortly after McCain's "regime change" comments, in a CNN post-mortem webcast after the show she and State Of The Union producer Tom Bettag seemed to scratch their heads over just what it was McCain meant when he said "regime change" during the show. "That's why you always want an hour and half with these guys," Crowley said. "'Cuz you want to say, 'And, so, how would we go about doing that?'"
This is just an idea I had, CNN, but maybe you all should consider this tactic: when an interviewee says something that gives you the WTF-face, you could maybe deviate from your scripted questions, pause and ask said interviewee, "I'm sorry, but what did you mean when you said that thing you said, just a few seconds ago, on our teevee show?"

Obviously, the downside here is that you really steal away from your exclusive online post-game lamentation of the terrible interview you just conducted.
 
Re: CNN Liberal? Yea, Right!

I wish the media would stop giving this guy softball interviews.

source: Huffington Post


CNN Regrets Not Asking John McCain A Follow-Up Question


So, over the weekend, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) went on CNN's "State Of The Union", where he talked about the need for "regime change" in North Korea. John McCain is always doing things like this! During the 2008 campaign, he wanted to bomb Iran, liberate the teensy region of South Ossetia from the Russians, and was even angry at Spain for some reason. And one often wonders, "Where, exactly, are we going to get the troops and/or money to do these things? Or is the hope that somehow, the Green Lantern Corps will kit out McCain with a power ring?"

In the case of North Korea, if you dial back the interview, you'll see that in this instance, McCain puts the onus for changing the regime in Pyongyang on China. "They could bring the North Korean economy to its knees if they wanted to," said McCain, who went on to muse, "And I cannot believe that the Chinese should, in a mature fashion, not find it in their interest to restrain North Korea. So far, they are not."

But if not China, where does this leave this dream of regime change in North Korea? As you might expect, CNN had to "leave it there." And that sets up my favorite read out of the CNN-McCain tete-a-tete, courtesy of Evan McMorris-Santoro:
Though [State Of The Union host Candy] Crowley moved the interview ahead to Afghanistan shortly after McCain's "regime change" comments, in a CNN post-mortem webcast after the show she and State Of The Union producer Tom Bettag seemed to scratch their heads over just what it was McCain meant when he said "regime change" during the show. "That's why you always want an hour and half with these guys," Crowley said. "'Cuz you want to say, 'And, so, how would we go about doing that?'"
This is just an idea I had, CNN, but maybe you all should consider this tactic: when an interviewee says something that gives you the WTF-face, you could maybe deviate from your scripted questions, pause and ask said interviewee, "I'm sorry, but what did you mean when you said that thing you said, just a few seconds ago, on our teevee show?"
Obviously, the downside here is that you really steal away from your exclusive online post-game lamentation of the terrible interview you just conducted.


They can't do that. They would have a harder time booking politicians if they did that.
 
Re: CNN Liberal? Yea, Right!

What a lot of people don't pick up on is how in some ways statements of force made in Asia are subdued. While America took China's warning to everyone to calm down is equivalent to the US saying they will use deadly force. They have over a million people in their armed forces, they prefer the sleeping giant approach.

Besides, they are looking at it two ways. War is going to send North Korean refugees to their border, and if North Korea ceased to exist that still is going to make that part of the country unstable until things settle and that can take years. Despite how conservatives want to spin it, it's in their best interest to keep North Korea as a buffer and they won't do it by force unless someone really fucks up and forces it.
 
Re: CNN Liberal? Yea, Right!

Which feeds in to the so called "low information voter" syndrome.

You think? - or, is the electorate just lazy as hell? I'm not cutting your theory but I have long believed that people are just not that interested in knowing, analyzing and understanding whats going on around them. Maybe I'm just becoming cynical.

QueEx
 
Re: CNN Liberal? Yea, Right!

You think? - or, is the electorate just lazy as hell? I'm not cutting your theory but I have long believed that people are just not that interested in knowing, analyzing and understanding whats going on around them. Maybe I'm just becoming cynical.

QueEx

This is the shortest clip I could find.

Watch the segment when the bearded gentleman, Edmund Morris respond to Bob Schieffer's Teddy Roosevelt question. He explains why Americans are what you state above.


<embed src='http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/player-dest.swf' FlashVars='linkUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7096787n&releaseURL=http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/player-dest.swf&videoId=50096583&partner=news&vert=News&si=254&autoPlayVid=false&name=cbsPlayer&allowScriptAccess=always&wmode=transparent&embedded=y&scale=noscale&rv=n&salign=tl' allowFullScreen='true' width='425' height='324' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed><br/><a href='http://www.cbsnews.com'>Watch CBS News Videos Online</a>​
 
Re: CNN Liberal? Yea, Right!

source: Huffington Post

Supreme Court Health Care Ruling: CNN, Fox News Wrong On Individual Mandate (VIDEO)

<div style='text-align:center'>
<object width='560' height='345' id='FiveminPlayer' classid='clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000'>
<param name='allowfullscreen' value='true'/>
<param name='allowScriptAccess' value='always'/>
<param name='movie' value='http://embed.5min.com/517406831/'/>
<param name='wmode' value='opaque' />
<embed name='FiveminPlayer' src='http://embed.5min.com/517406831/' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' width='560' height='345' allowfullscreen='true' allowScriptAccess='always' wmode='opaque'>
</embed>
</object>
<br/>
</div>
CNN and Fox News were left with egg on their faces on Thursday, as they got the Supreme Court's ruling on President Obama's health care law wrong.

The trouble started early for CNN. Congressional correspondent Kate Boulduan read out part of the Court's ruling, which said that the individual mandate could not be upheld using the Commerce Clause. Disastrously, though, it failed to pick up the other part of the ruling, which said that it could be upheld as a tax.

"Wow, that's a dramatic moment," Wolf Blitzer said, as a chyron saying "SUPREME CT. KILLS INDIVIDUAL MANDATE" flashed on the screen.

"The Justices have just gutted, Wolf, the centerpiece provision of the health care law," John King said, adding that it was a "direct blow to President Obama."

Later, Boulduan returned to correct the initial report. She said that the Court had released a "very confusing large opinion" and that on the second read, it was apparent that the network had gotten it wrong. "The entire law has been upheld, Wolf," she said.

She said that the decision was "thick" and "legally dense," scanning the papers on-air.

"It's a huge, huge victory for President Obama," Blitzer said.

Later, the network's chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin explained the snafu, saying that the intricacies of the ruling had tripped people up.

"Five minutes into Chief justice Robert’s opinion, you would have asked anyone in that room whether this law was going to be held unconstitutional, I think we all would have said yes," he said. "But we were all sitting there, we had to sit till the end, and this turn of events surprised me, that’s for sure."

It also sent out breaking news alerts saying that the mandate had been struck down. It was later forced to issue a correction.

The network addressed the error in a statement. A spokesperson explained how it happened and said, "CNN regrets that it didn't wait to report out the full and complete opinion regarding the mandate. We made a correction within a few minutes and apologize for the error.”

BuzzFeed reported that the error had caused considerable consternation within CNN.

"It's outrageous and embarrassing,” one staffer told the site's Michael Hastings. “Maybe this will shake the company into understanding that CNN has not been the 'most trusted name in news' for a very long time."

Fox News made the same mistake, initially saying the mandate had been struck down before switching its headline:

<div style='text-align:center'>
<object width='560' height='345' id='FiveminPlayer' classid='clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000'>
<param name='allowfullscreen' value='true'/>
<param name='allowScriptAccess' value='always'/>
<param name='movie' value='http://embed.5min.com/517406870/'/>
<param name='wmode' value='opaque' />
<embed name='FiveminPlayer' src='http://embed.5min.com/517406870/' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' width='560' height='345' allowfullscreen='true' allowScriptAccess='always' wmode='opaque'>
</embed>
</object>
<br/>
</div>
“We have breaking news here on the Fox News Channel," anchor Bill Hemmer said. "The individual mandate has been ruled unconstitutional."

Megyn Kelly jumped in. "We're getting conflicting information," she said.

The Huffington Post was not immune to the confusion. A tweet from the Politics section initially said that the mandate had been struck down. It was later retracted:

Meanwhile, MSNBC president Phil Griffin sent a congratulatory email to staff. (MSNBC, unlike its rivals, got the ruling right.)

"Your work today set us apart from the competition," he wrote.
 
Re: CNN Liberal? Yea, Right!

Not in CNN's defense, but Supreme Court opinions are typically quite voluminous and the justifications for the holdings can be confusing to the average reader. Sometimes, its not hard to confuse the dicta in Supreme Court opinions for the holding (the rule of law that emerges from the case).
 
Re: CNN Liberal? Yea, Right!

Not in CNN's defense, but Supreme Court opinions are typically quite voluminous and the justifications for the holdings can be confusing to the average reader. Sometimes, its not hard to confuse the dicta in Supreme Court opinions for the holding (the rule of law that emerges from the case).


So you are saying they aren't bias, they're incompetent.
 
Re: CNN Liberal? Yea, Right!

source: Huffington Post


David Gergen, CNN Analyst, Reveals Extent Of Bain Capital Ties While 'Reporting' On Firm


s-DAVID-GERGEN-BAIN-large300.jpg



NEW YORK -- CNN senior political analyst David Gergen defended Mitt Romney this week against the Obama campaign's charges that the Republican nominee hasn't been honest about his tenure at Bain Capital -- a private-equity firm the former presidential adviser-turned-TV pundit knows something about.

On Monday, Gergen acknowledged having a "past relationship with the top partners at Bain that is both personal and financial" -- a disclosure that the Daily Beast's Andrew Sullivan suggested is "what's wrong with the press corps" and raised questions about Gergen's role in analyzing Romney's experience at the firm.

"I have worked with them in support of nonprofit organizations such as City Year," Gergen wrote. "I have given a couple of paid speeches for Bain dinners, as I have for many other groups. I was on the board of a for-profit childcare company, Bright Horizons, that was purchased by Bain Capital. It was a transaction with financial benefits for all board members and shareholders, including me."

Gergen, while acknowledging his "bias" on Monday, wrote how he's "come to admire and like the leaders of Bain Capital" because the firm "stands out for the respect in which it is generally held and for the generous philanthropy of some of its partners."

The Romney campaign is facing a media firestorm over the candidate's ties to Bain after February 1999, when the campaign maintains he gave up involvement in management and investment decisions to run the Olympics. Reporters at The Huffington Post, among other outlets, have challenged the campaign's claims, while revealing Romney's continued ties to Bain through 2002, including signed SEC documents confirming his position as Bain's sole owner and chief executive and sworn testimony that he continued sitting on Bain-affiliated boards of companies for years after the Olympics.

But Gergen said he also looked into the matter, noting that "when the story first broke Thursday in the Boston Globe suggesting that Romney and Bain had fudged, CNN asked if I would do some reporting." And Gergen's Bain sources, speaking anonymously, backed up the campaign's claims, thus leading the CNN analyst to argue the Obama team's charges aren't supported by facts.

It's seems unusual for CNN to ask a political analyst like Gergen -- especially one with ties to Bain -- to do independent reporting for the network.

A CNN spokeswoman explained in a statement to The Huffington Post why Gergen was asked to do reporting and said the producer making the request was unaware of Gergen's relationship to Bain at the time.
"Last week a CNN producer asked several reporters and analysts, including David Gergen, to follow up on questions about Gov. Romney’s exit from Bain. At the time, the CNN producer was unaware that David had past financial ties with Bain years ago. In a later conversation, when David disclosed this past relationship, all agreed that he would be transparent with a full disclosure when he appeared on CNN later that night. The disclosure was also included in David’s weekend op-ed."
The spokeswoman added that Gergen has no current relationship with Bain and hasn't had one for years. And if Gergen again discusses Bain on air, his past relationship will be disclosed.

Gergen made disclosures during recent appearances on "Anderson Cooper 360," where he described the Obama campaign's attacks on Bain as "way off-base" and "ill-founded." Bain, he told Cooper, is "very well regarded in Boston."

That's a position Gergen's taken before, with or without being clear about the extent of his past financial relationships with Bain. In looking at Gergen's previous, largely praise-worthy analysis of Bain during the 2012 election cycle, the CNN analyst has, at times, noted some relationship to Bain while also neglecting to do so on air when lauding the company.

On Jan. 9, host Anderson Cooper asked Gergen about Republicans striking a more populist tone in attacking Romney just before the New Hampshire primary. Gergen suggested "desperation" on the part of Romney's rivals and noted that "Bain Capital is a success within the free market system."

"Within Boston where I live now and Bain Capital is located, Bain has a very good reputation," Gergen said. "They are not seen as corporate raiders. They're seen as responsible in the way they buy out things."

Gergen acknowledged having "one personal experience in a corporate setting where they came in and bought the company," without naming the company.

"We were very, very proud, in terms of the company and having Bain as partner," he continued. "And Domino's Pizza, I can tell you from another conversation today with someone who was very involved in that, Bain came in, they did it -- very responsible. Domino's had that niche in the market of delivering pizzas, they almost went down, and Bain came in, turned it around and they have done well."

Overall, Gergen said on air, "within the business community, Bain has a general reputation in Boston as very positive."

Two days later, Gergen similarly wrote in an online column of Bain Capital's "positive reputation in Boston and beyond."

"I have worked with today's Bain partners on several projects, mostly revolving around nonprofits, and I have found them to be highly professional, socially committed individuals," Gergen wrote. "Some are seen as among the leading philanthropists in New England. It is worth remembering, too, that the Olympics hired Romney to head the Games while he was at Bain Capital. Is it logical to think the Olympic committee had any sense that Romney was a predatory capitalist? The question answers itself."

But the Bain issue came up again after the Republican primary, with the Obama campaign zeroing in on what was perceived as Romney's greatest asset in the general election: his business experience. In May, Gergen told Cooper that the Obama campaign's strategy wouldn't work "because the president enters this fray with a lot of evidence that shows that Bain is a respected company."

While Gergen didn't mention his own relationship to Bain during that May appearance, he suggested that investors in private-equity firms like Bain aren't all Gordon Gekko-types.

"Many of them are foundations," he said. "They're pension funds. They're university endowments. Those are not just a lot of fat cats."

And some of them may even be TV pundits.

On Monday, Sullivan described Gergen's recent disclosure as part of a larger problem involving the entangling worlds of elite media and finance.

"Just as so many of Washington's media elites could not bring themselves to indict their friends and business partners for war crimes -- even though the evidence was overwhelming -- so now buck-rakers like Gergen, knee deep in corporate cash, defend the men who helped them get rich," Sullivan wrote. "Gergen is part of the problem, not the solution."

While Gergen had specific ties to Bain, there are numerous pundits currently sizing up the presidential campaign and disputes over Romney's business record who also have ties to the financial services industry.

Dan Senor, a former Bush administration official and current Romney advisor, has been fiercely defending Romney's record in recent weeks on "Morning Joe," notably sparring with top Obama adviser Robert Gibbs. Senor, typically identified as a Romney adviser on the show, is also managing director of Rosemont Solebury Capital Management, a financial role not mentioned on MSNBC.

Democrats like former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and ex-Congressman Harold Ford Jr., each with ties in the financial services world, are also regulars on "Morning Joe." Since leaving office, Rendell joined investment bank Greenhill & Co. as a senior advisor and later Element Partners. Ford headed to Merrill Lynch as a vice chairman and senior policy adviser after losing his 2006 Senate race in Tennessee, later moving to Morgan Stanley. (In May, the Romney campaign even used a "Morning Joe" clip of Ford in an ad where he's talking about how "private equity is a good thing in many, many instances.")

Eddie Vale, a spokesman for Workers' Voice, a super PAC affiliated with the AFL-CIO, told The Huffington Post that the recent cable news debate over Romney's Bain record hasn't included enough voices from labor, relying often on pundits with financial services ties. Vale said that while print journalists have reached out to Workers' Voice for the labor perspective regarding Romney's tenure at Bain, the group has only gotten one television request -- and that appearance was cancelled.

"If the networks are only having one side of the story, they're doing a big disservice to their viewers," Vale said.
 
Back
Top