Home

CNN Exposed
Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  Last >>
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Jeanette




 
 
 


Post  Sat, Oct 19 2019, 10:54 pm
Quote:
If you want to get your information from his website, you may as well be taking your news from Alex Jones.


I suspect these same posters find Alex Jones an extremely reputable source.
Back to top

roses




 
 
 


Post  Sat, Oct 19 2019, 10:57 pm
Fox wrote:
And the revelations about CNN? Are those a joke, too? Or should we be concerned that the president of one of the primary corporate media organizations has turned the platform into a vendetta against an elected official?


CNN is a cable television show. I don't consider it a source of journalism, just like I don't consider Fox any kind of journalistic news. I don't watch cable news, Fox, CNN or otherwise. So I'm not feeling any particular outrage in any direction.

If you can link to a reliable news source regarding this topic, one with journalistic integrity, then I will give this some more consideration. But some poorly presented videos presented on some shady website doesn't really move me in any kind of direction.

In the meantime, if CNN bothers anyone, they are free to refrain from watching.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Sat, Oct 19 2019, 10:58 pm
WhatFor wrote:
To the other posters on this board, I encourage you to Google James O'Keefe, the guy who owns and started Project Veritas before giving his website any traffic.

He's a known fraudster who regularly edits videos to misrepresent what people are saying. Here's a tidbit to get you started:

https://www.businessinsider.co.....17-11

If you want to get your information from his website, you may as well be taking your news from Alex Jones.

Lol! "Information provided by Will Sommer" LOL LOL LOL

Project Veritas has been sued repeatedly and has never yet lost. The one occasion they settled involved permission to film, not deceptive editing or anything of that ilk.

So precisely how do you claim Project Veritas is misleading in these videos?
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Sat, Oct 19 2019, 11:00 pm
Jeanette wrote:
Quote:
If I were a journalist and Imamother were a publisher, this would be a noteworthy error. As it is, it's the kind of nitpicking error that is seized upon when the bulk of the accusation is true.


I see this pattern over and over. Make some extravagant claim, then when called on it, whine, "What do you expect? I'm not a lawyer," or "What do you expect? I'm not a journalist."

I dunno, maybe don't make claims you can't support in the first place.

"Extravagant claims"? That's just silly.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Sat, Oct 19 2019, 11:05 pm
roses wrote:
CNN is a cable television show. I don't consider it a source of journalism, just like I don't consider Fox any kind of journalistic news. I don't watch cable news, Fox, CNN or otherwise. So I'm not feeling any particular outrage in any direction.

If you can link to a reliable news source regarding this topic, one with journalistic integrity, then I will give this some more consideration. But some poorly presented videos presented on some shady website doesn't really move me in any kind of direction.

In the meantime, if CNN bothers anyone, they are free to refrain from watching.

Oh, like ABC, perhaps? The network that used footage of a gun range in Kentucky and claimed it was fighting in Syria?

Please spare me!

As for people simply avoiding CNN, that's fine. Unfortunately, they've bought their way into airports and similar public spaces. Although there was apparently an uprising at an airport gate not too long ago when passengers got fed up and demanded it be turned off.

But, please, by all means keep up the pose of elite disdain for anything you don't personally regard as "legitimate." That's the nose-in-the-air approach that won Clinton the 2016 election. Oh, wait . . .
Back to top

roses




 
 
 


Post  Sat, Oct 19 2019, 11:09 pm
Fox wrote:
Oh, like ABC, perhaps? The network that used footage of a gun range in Kentucky and claimed it was fighting in Syria?

Please spare me!

As for people simply avoiding CNN, that's fine. Unfortunately, they've bought their way into airports and similar public spaces. Although there was apparently an uprising at an airport gate not too long ago when passengers got fed up and demanded it be turned off.

But, please, by all means keep up the pose of elite disdain for anything you don't personally regard as "legitimate." That's the nose-in-the-air approach that won Clinton the 2016 election. Oh, wait . . .


Sure, no problem. And by all means, continue to chase down every conspiracy theory on every shady website out there.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Sat, Oct 19 2019, 11:15 pm
roses wrote:
Sure, no problem. And by all means, continue to chase down every conspiracy theory on every shady website out there.

What are you claiming is a conspiracy theory?

Back in 2016, I was condescendingly told here on Imamother that shadow-banning was a "conspiracy theory." Lo and behold, there was Jack Dorsey testifying in Congress about it less than two years later.

I was also assured by various Imamothers that being concerned about banning people from social media wasn't a legitimate problem. Ban Milo and the world will be a better place, they told me. Well, it just continued. This week, the ban was Mike Harlow, who's been given no reason for his ban. He's appealing it now. Oh, and simply wishing Milo a happy birthday on Facebook nets you a 45 day suspension. No problems here!

My record of distinguishing baseless theories from those with teeth is pretty good.
Back to top

marina




 
 
 


Post  Sat, Oct 19 2019, 11:30 pm
Fox wrote:
Still waiting for your thoughts on the role of CNN in disguising their intent to influence voters.


I’ll start worrying about CNN when their CEO becomes a White House Chief Strategist.

You know, kind of like you worried so much about Breitbart and Steve Bannon.


Last edited by marina on Sun, Oct 20 2019, 12:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Sat, Oct 19 2019, 11:39 pm
marina wrote:
I’ll start worrying about CNN when their CEO becomes a White House Chief Strategist.

You know, kind of like you worried so much about Breitbart and Steve Bannon.

This makes no sense -- I can't even figure out the analogy you're trying to draw.

The concern about Bannon was that he would give Breitbart exclusives. There was never any evidence that occurred, and Breitbart's fortunes declined in his absence.

I don't think anyone is concerned about Jeff Zucker being given a governmental-adjacent role and slipping scoops to CNN. They're concerned about him using the power of one of the major news outlets to pursue what appears to be a personal vendetta while disguising his intent.
Back to top

marina




 
 
 


Post  Sun, Oct 20 2019, 12:14 am
Fox wrote:
This makes no sense -- I can't even figure out the analogy you're trying to draw.

The concern about Bannon was that he would give Breitbart exclusives. There was never any evidence that occurred, and Breitbart's fortunes declined in his absence.

I don't think anyone is concerned about Jeff Zucker being given a governmental-adjacent role and slipping scoops to CNN. They're concerned about him using the power of one of the major news outlets to pursue what appears to be a personal vendetta while disguising his intent.


Yeah I can see how a media outlet’s leanings and integrity might be totally unclear when the CEO is given a white house leadership role. I can see how that might be confusing. I wonder what that could possibly mean. Probably not that they are biased. No way, Breitbart could never be biased. Only CNN is biased def no one else.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Sun, Oct 20 2019, 12:19 am
marina wrote:
Yeah I can see how a media outlet’s leanings and integrity might be totally unclear when the CEO is given a white house leadership role. I can see how that might be confusing. I wonder what that could possibly mean. Probably not that they are biased. No way, Breitbart could never be biased. Only CNN is biased def no one else.

Are you intentionally missing the point?

No one would care if CNN were biased and acknowledged it. After all, MSNBC has a left-of-center bias which they happily admit. The problem is not necessarily the bias; the problem is consistently claiming that there is no bias when there clearly is -- and your employees confirm it.

I'm beginning to wonder if you even watched the footage.
Back to top

Jeanette




 
 
 


Post  Sun, Oct 20 2019, 12:41 am
Can we talk about James O'keefe's explosive allegations that Washington Post tried to plant a fake Roy Moore abortion story?

Maybe you still think that's real.
Back to top

Laiya




 
 
 


Post  Sun, Oct 20 2019, 12:58 am
Jeanette wrote:
Quote:
If I were a journalist and Imamother were a publisher, this would be a noteworthy error. As it is, it's the kind of nitpicking error that is seized upon when the bulk of the accusation is true.


I see this pattern over and over. Make some extravagant claim, then when called on it, whine, "What do you expect? I'm not a lawyer," or "What do you expect? I'm not a journalist."

I dunno, maybe don't make claims you can't support in the first place.


Again, accusing a poster of intentionally misleading is odd given that she literally provided a link to the source citation. These types of personal accusations are what make these threads hostile.
Back to top

Jeanette




 
 
 


Post  Sun, Oct 20 2019, 1:09 am
Quote:

Again, accusing a poster of intentionally misleading is odd given that she literally provided a link to the source citation. These types of personal accusations are what make these threads hostile.


The headline was hers. The link was to Trump's lawyer's letter which was NOT a lawsuit. So Fox does bear responsibility for the claim.

Also if you want to introduce material for the purpose of discussion, because you find it interesting and thought provoking and you want to encourage an exchange of viewpoints, it's helpful to consider the source first. Is this generally considered a credible source? Is there any reason why this source might be considered NOT credible? Trying to plant a fake rape story in WaPo so you can scream "fake news" is something that should discredit a source forever, but not in this case apparently. So, why might that be?
Back to top

DrMom




 
 
 


Post  Sun, Oct 20 2019, 1:48 am
IIRC, Project Veritas always releases the uncut video footage in addition to their shortened version. I find their work to be valuable. At least they are doing investigative journalism. Too bad out mainstream news outlets do not do investigative journalism anymore!
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Sun, Oct 20 2019, 2:08 am
Jeanette wrote:
Quote:

Again, accusing a poster of intentionally misleading is odd given that she literally provided a link to the source citation. These types of personal accusations are what make these threads hostile.


The headline was hers. The link was to Trump's lawyer's letter which was NOT a lawsuit. So Fox does bear responsibility for the claim.

Also if you want to introduce material for the purpose of discussion, because you find it interesting and thought provoking and you want to encourage an exchange of viewpoints, it's helpful to consider the source first. Is this generally considered a credible source? Is there any reason why this source might be considered NOT credible? Trying to plant a fake rape story in WaPo so you can scream "fake news" is something that should discredit a source forever, but not in this case apparently. So, why might that be?

This is getting more hilarious with each post.

So, let's see -- Project Veritas tried to see if WaPo would fall for a story that met their narrative. They didn't. Okay. But that's a pretty standard tactic in investigative journalism.

However, we have ABC quite literally lying about footage that they doctored to make appear grainier. If someone cites an ABC story, will you purse your lips and declare ABC outside the pale?

And, of course, we have CNN, which has entertained all kinds of people as commentators, experts, and credible sources -- most notably Michael Avenatti -- who have been shown to be complete liars.

Yet Project Veritas should be "discredited"? They've won every single case in which they've been sued except for one, and they settled that because it involved a question of whether filming was allowed.

But fussing about Project Veritas is an excellent distraction from discussing the role of CNN in attempting to manipulate public opinion without being transparent regarding its bias.
Back to top

WhatFor




 
 
 


Post  Sun, Oct 20 2019, 2:12 am
DrMom wrote:
IIRC, Project Veritas always releases the uncut video footage in addition to their shortened version. I find their work to be valuable. At least they are doing investigative journalism. Too bad out mainstream news outlets do not do investigative journalism anymore!


James O'Keefe is not an investigative journalist, he's a political activist who has been caught multiple times trying to plant false stories, and doctoring footage to misrepresent things other people have said. He has long tried to discredit proper media outlets - trying to blur the line between fact and opinion, so that people stop believing there's such a thing as an objective truth.

I wouldn't click on his website or any of his videos to go into why or why not I don't agree because not everything online merits any audience, much less my own audience. Same as I wouldn't entertain anything that Alex Jones has to say. Is it possible Alex Jones could post something truthful? Sure, but I don't care as he's deliberately misled people time and again, and there are plenty of trustworthy media outlets out there from where I can get my news.

Simply put, if you need to rely on James O'Keefe to make a point, there's a good chance your point is meritless.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Sun, Oct 20 2019, 2:19 am
DrMom wrote:
IIRC, Project Veritas always releases the uncut video footage in addition to their shortened version. I find their work to be valuable. At least they are doing investigative journalism. Too bad out mainstream news outlets do not do investigative journalism anymore!

Precisely. They attempt to be very transparent about what they do.

You'll notice that the focus of most of the posters is to (a) slam me personally for mistakenly saying that a lawsuit had been filed rather than one is intended; and (b) argue that Project Veritas is outside the realm of acceptable sources, attempting to portray it as some sort of kooky operation.

Nary a word about the content that, frankly, isn't the least ambiguous.

So, apparently, entities that lie about their intentions or engage in subterfuge in an attempt to manipulate public opinion to influence elections are only bad if they attempt to do so in favor of President Trump.

Otherwise, feel free to offer assistance to the Democratic candidate of your choice through your government or your corporation and engage in whatever cover-ups you deem appropriate!
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Sun, Oct 20 2019, 2:21 am
WhatFor wrote:
James O'Keefe is not an investigative journalist, he's a political activist who has been caught multiple times trying to plant false stories, and doctoring footage to misrepresent things other people have said. He has long tried to discredit proper media outlets - trying to blur the line between fact and opinion, so that people stop believing there's such a thing as an objective truth.

I wouldn't click on his website or any of his videos to go into why or why not I don't agree because not everything online merits any audience, much less my own audience. Same as I wouldn't entertain anything that Alex Jones has to say. Is it possible Alex Jones could post something truthful? Sure, but I don't care as he's deliberately misled people time and again, and there are plenty of trustworthy media outlets out there from where I can get my news.

Simply put, if you need to rely on James O'Keefe to make a point, there's a good chance your point is meritless.

Sources for your accusation about doctoring footage? Because every time that's been alleged in court, he's won. And I can't even count the number of retractions of that accusation he's forced people to give on social media. Fortunately, I doubt if he's monitoring Imamother, so you're probably safe.
Back to top

gold21




 
 
 


Post  Sun, Oct 20 2019, 3:07 am
Jeanette wrote:
Quote:
If I were a journalist and Imamother were a publisher, this would be a noteworthy error. As it is, it's the kind of nitpicking error that is seized upon when the bulk of the accusation is true.


I see this pattern over and over. Make some extravagant claim, then when called on it, whine, "What do you expect? I'm not a lawyer," or "What do you expect? I'm not a journalist."

I dunno, maybe don't make claims you can't support in the first place.


Don't make some extravagant claim that can't be supported- wait, but isn't that what Democrats do all the time?

Hmmm.... Collusion with Russia comes to mind. Quid pro quo. Etc. Scratching Head
Back to top
Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  Last >> Recent Topics

Page 2 of 4 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Why don’t CNN/MSNBC report this?
by Cheiny
34 Fri, Jul 05 2019, 7:50 am View last post
4 month old exposed to measles. WWYD?
by amother
14 Sun, Mar 31 2019, 11:23 pm View last post
CNN Assumes their viewers can’t think on their own
by Cheiny
4 Sun, Mar 17 2019, 5:10 pm View last post
CNN And Anti Semitism
by Cheiny
38 Sun, Mar 17 2019, 2:23 am View last post
Scared I was exposed to Asbestos
by amother
7 Sun, Mar 10 2019, 3:54 pm View last post

Jump to: