• PBS Censors Jill Stein's Interview
    31 replies, posted
[QUOTE]On Tuesday, PBS's Judy Woodruff did a live interview with Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein which was carried on Facebook. The entire interview, plus questions asked by viewers, is present at the network's Facebook page. That interview without the Facebook questions was also broadcast on PBS's NewsHour — but not quite all of it. For some reason, key portions of Stein's answer to Woodruff's final question about whether "literally ... Hillary Clinton is every bit as bad for the country as Donald Trump" are not present. Based on what was edited out, it would appear that the cutouts, at least one of which was done in mid-sentence, were carried out to protect Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton's left flank. Woodruff's final question, and Stein's full response, are in the video below. What is and is not present at PBS's website reflecting its over the air broadcast, both in the individual interview segment and the full program video, is clearly indicated, thanks to work done by leftist YouTube channel proprietor Matt Orfalea, who was upset that Stein's "eloquent" criticism was spiked.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2016/08/27/pbs-newshour-cuts-key-portions-jill-stein-interview[/url] [url]http://leecamp.net/pbs-censors-key-portions-of-jill-steins-interview/[/url] [video=youtube;nvqdl_CGCGk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvqdl_CGCGk[/video] Can't find many news sources reporting on this, but the youtube video pretty much says all.
You can't fucking trust any news source anymore, not even PBS. Jesus.
at least she isn't this guy: [video=youtube;36pBCJaWPRU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36pBCJaWPRU[/video]
You missed the point of this article completely.
Can we break up the news corporation please? Ever since Bill Clinton allowed the telecoms industry to be deregulated and now a handful of corporations own all the news networks across the country shit like this is happening. Normally I'd be for deregulation since it's great that anyone could enter the industry, but in the case of the media brainwashing and controlling the flow of information like this it's a threat to democracy itself. Edit: And jesus the arrogant smirk on that news anchor as Jill Stein spoke, did they fucking know they would censor her?
The entire segment was a heavily cut version of what is available on their Facebook but they really should have left the full response from Stein in. The cut totally takes the context out of her argument, an argument I don't even agree with. Makes you wonder why they even bothered with the question.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50965851]Can we break up the news corporation please? Ever since Bill Clinton allowed the telecoms industry to be deregulated and now a handful of corporations own all the news networks across the country shit like this is happening. Normally I'd be for deregulation since it's great that anyone could enter the industry, but in the case of the media brainwashing and controlling the flow of information like this it's a threat to democracy itself. Edit: And jesus the arrogant smirk on that news anchor as Jill Stein spoke, did they fucking know they would censor her?[/QUOTE] Honestly, sometimes regulation isn't the way to go either. Over here the government makes the news agencies literally fabricate stories and manufacture narratives to make the opposition unappealing to anyone with access to any media. I am pretty sure no one in Russia knows who Jill Stein is, or Gary Johnson for the matter. Currently there is a very noticeable pro-Trump narrative with people slandering Clinton with petty insults in the comments on any article about the US elections.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50965851]Can we break up the news corporation please? Ever since Bill Clinton allowed the telecoms industry to be deregulated and now a handful of corporations own all the news networks across the country shit like this is happening. Normally I'd be for deregulation since it's great that anyone could enter the industry, but in the case of the media brainwashing and controlling the flow of information like this it's a threat to democracy itself. Edit: And jesus the arrogant smirk on that news anchor as Jill Stein spoke, did they fucking know they would censor her?[/QUOTE] You realize PBS is federally funded and also pretty much backed by people?
the only way to get the full picture is to read as many different sources as possible then synthesize from there
[QUOTE=Swilly;50965902]You realize PBS is federally funded and also pretty much backed by people?[/QUOTE] Federal funding for a news corporation which actively cuts pieces of a segment is terrible. How many people will watch a livestream of the segment and instead catch it on the facebook feed the next day where it has been edited to remove all the unfavorable points about Hillary? Having a public news service is great but when it shows clears bias how can you trust what it says?
It's OK though because Hillary is better than Trump.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;50965938]It's OK though because Hillary is better than Trump.[/QUOTE] She absolutely is but that doesn't make this cut right.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50966015]She absolutely is but that doesn't make this cut right.[/QUOTE] I don't know, I'm not a big fan of Trump either, but I can't recall any times he's put American lives in danger by being lazy until having to cover it up.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;50965938]It's OK though because Hillary is better than Trump.[/QUOTE] When people have been saying that Hillary Clinton is bad but not as bad as Trump, it actually means that Hillary Clinton is still bad.
I'm not seeing the problem? The interview is purported to be 15 minutes but the PBS posted video is clearly edited for time as it is only 8 minutes on youtube. They then follow up with "see our extended interview on facebook live". They also post the full transcript literally right under the video. It is incredibly common for news outlets to edit interviews for time. Not everything is some huge conspiracy between shadowy men in backrooms. I would give this story more credit if the main "outlets" carrying it weren't the blaze and breitbart which is literally ran by Trumps campaign manager. Where is everyone's outrage over that conflict of interest?
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50965851]Can we break up the news corporation please? Ever since Bill Clinton allowed the telecoms industry to be deregulated and now a handful of corporations own all the news networks across the country shit like this is happening. Normally I'd be for deregulation since it's great that anyone could enter the industry, but in the case of the media brainwashing and controlling the flow of information like this it's a threat to democracy itself. Edit: And jesus the arrogant smirk on that news anchor as Jill Stein spoke, did they fucking know they would censor her?[/QUOTE] Uh, what? How would deregulation make it easier for someone to enter an industry, especially the kind of deregulation that Bill Clinton put in since that made it easier for companies to grow bigger and thus hold a bigger hold of the market share, making it easier for them to snuff out any new competition that comes around the block? Allowing the government to trustbust to allow for more room in an industry and regulations in order to stem big competitors growth would produce far more competition therefore allowing new competitors into the arena. I mean for god sakes, this idea has been around since the 1890s, and these ideas put into place during the presidencies of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson allowed the massive economic boom in the 1920s to happen, only for the market to fail once again when we didn't regulate in order to stop bullshit like buying on the margin and the incredible grain surplus from WWI. The fact that people still think deregulation is a good thing after over 200 years of proving it's not is just astounding to me.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50965926]Federal funding for a news corporation which actively cuts pieces of a segment is terrible. How many people will watch a livestream of the segment and instead catch it on the facebook feed the next day where it has been edited to remove all the unfavorable points about Hillary? Having a public news service is great but when it shows clears bias how can you trust what it says?[/QUOTE] Actually; facebook video is slowly starting to grow into a larger force. Anyone can reference it and its entirely normal for entire interviews to be chewed down into bite size pieces. It happens all the time. The issue here is where they cut it.
[QUOTE=Dolton;50966158]I'm not seeing the problem?[/QUOTE]Of course you don't, you make your bias pretty clear:[QUOTE]I would give this story more credit if the main "outlets" carrying it weren't the blaze and breitbart which is literally ran by Trumps campaign manager. Where is everyone's outrage over that conflict of interest?[/QUOTE]I know people accuse Raidyr of being a mindless Hillary shill but I think they forget about you. [QUOTE]The interview is purported to be 15 minutes but the PBS posted video is clearly edited for time as it is only 8 minutes on youtube.[/QUOTE]Cutting somebody's answer mid-sentence is sometimes necessary but as a general rule it should be avoided if you wish to maintain credibility. Ignoring for a moment your absolute inability to accept any criticism against your darling Hillary the issue is where and how they cut it rather than why. Or at least outwardly why, conspiracy theories aside it was still a [I]dick move[/I] to Jill Stein and I say this as somebody who doesn't really like the Green Party. Anyone who didn't see the full interview or bother to look at the transcript (that nobody would think to look at because they [I]just[/I] watched the video) would walk away with a very, very short answer that glosses over some harsh criticism and makes Stein look like a tree-hugging nutcase. That's a misrepresentation and [I]manipulation[/I] of what she said and I'll demonstrate the same thing with your post: [QUOTE]I'm not seeing the problem? The interview is ... clearly edited ... right. It is ... some huge conspiracy between shadowy men in backrooms ... and breitbart which is literally ran by Trump.[/QUOTE] I made you look like a moron and a lunatic and I didn't [I]change[/I] anything, I just cleverly cut out words.
[QUOTE=Demeschik;50965895]Currently there is a very noticeable pro-Trump narrative with people slandering Clinton with petty insults in the comments on any article about the US elections.[/QUOTE] Are you for real?
[QUOTE=Seerus;50966348]Are you for real?[/QUOTE] Pretty sure he's talking about Russia. Like Russian articles
[QUOTE=Demeschik;50965895]Honestly, sometimes regulation isn't the way to go either. Over here the government makes the news agencies literally fabricate stories and manufacture narratives to make the opposition unappealing to anyone with access to any media. I am pretty sure no one in Russia knows who Jill Stein is, or Gary Johnson for the matter. Currently there is a very noticeable pro-Trump narrative with people slandering Clinton with petty insults in the comments on any article about the US elections.[/QUOTE] Do you have that feeling about your national press? or press in general?
On the bright side, this election and 2016 as a whole has convinced me to start thinking about a career in journalism. So at least I know what I want to do with my life. Journalism is completely fucked at the moment, not just from corporate influence but also extreme bias and personal agendas. I'm not exactly the most unbiased person in America, but that shit just doesn't belong in journalism. Not everything is an editorial, like, just do your fucking job and give people the facts. Don't spoonfeed them what they want to hear.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50966498]On the bright side, this election and 2016 as a whole has convinced me to start thinking about a career in journalism. So at least I know what I want to do with my life. Journalism is completely fucked at the moment, not just from corporate influence but also extreme bias and personal agendas. I'm not exactly the most unbiased person in America, but that shit just doesn't belong in journalism. Not everything is an editorial, like, just do your fucking job and give people the facts. Don't spoonfeed them what they want to hear.[/QUOTE] IMO its great what you are doing and with the drive you have you could have a very happy life doing what you love. But imo its not the journalists or even the editorial rooms that are flawed... its the system that promotes bad behavior with financial success that steers the editorial boards towards asking good journalists to do bad reporting. No journalist ever started reporting thinking 'i want to spin this bullshit narrative in day to day journalism for money' and no media outlet is formed with 'we want to make our journalists spin this narrative our fund raisers would like' If you want to enact change, become a congressman or women and shill for everything and everyone in order to get up high and then force through that one law you know will make a positive change... its how the system works now.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50966498]On the bright side, this election and 2016 as a whole has convinced me to start thinking about a career in journalism. So at least I know what I want to do with my life. Journalism is completely fucked at the moment, not just from corporate influence but also extreme bias and personal agendas. I'm not exactly the most unbiased person in America, but that shit just doesn't belong in journalism. Not everything is an editorial, like, just do your fucking job and give people the facts. Don't spoonfeed them what they want to hear.[/QUOTE] I've heard plenty of stories of editors literally refusing to run a piece until it has left bias put into it, because people think that's what sells. As well as seeing a guy who claimed he went to a pheonix journalism school, and was told to give a climate change assignment a "voice". The guy gave it a mild conservative "voice" from his own opinions, and the instructor failed him, supposedly straight up saying "any bias has to be towards the left, or people won't read it". I don't know how true the latter is but it seems plausible these days I appreciate you trying to fix the world, but the only people who can fix that are the people on top. Even the NY Times, the former bulwark of objective reporting is biased as hell these days. Something's gotta change before decent reporting comes back, the suits are convinced they have to do this, and with bugger all money left in the papers, they might be right. feeding people's biases does work, but you can see the extreme opinions it's fueled when everyone stays in their abstract territory of ideas. It wasn't always like this, and frankly it's doing damage
[QUOTE=Seerus;50966348]Are you for real?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50966481]Do you have that feeling about your national press? or press in general?[/QUOTE] Perhaps I should have clarified, I was talking about Russian press. In Western media it seems a bit Clinton-centric.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50966307]Of course you don't, you make your bias pretty clear:I know people accuse Raidyr of being a mindless Hillary shill but I think they forget about you. Cutting somebody's answer mid-sentence is sometimes necessary but as a general rule it should be avoided if you wish to maintain credibility. Ignoring for a moment your absolute inability to accept any criticism against your darling Hillary the issue is where and how they cut it rather than why. Or at least outwardly why, conspiracy theories aside it was still a [I]dick move[/I] to Jill Stein and I say this as somebody who doesn't really like the Green Party. Anyone who didn't see the full interview or bother to look at the transcript (that nobody would think to look at because they [I]just[/I] watched the video) would walk away with a very, very short answer that glosses over some harsh criticism and makes Stein look like a tree-hugging nutcase. That's a misrepresentation and [I]manipulation[/I] of what she said and I'll demonstrate the same thing with your post: I made you look like a moron and a lunatic and I didn't [I]change[/I] anything, I just cleverly cut out words.[/QUOTE] Lol what buddy? I'm a mindless Hilary shill? All you have is attacking me and calling me a shill? Nope, I'm the biased one. I watched the PBS video all the way through. No answers were cut mid sentence. The only cuts I saw were between answers / questions. And guess what? Fox news makes liberal use of interview cutting, just like NBC, NPR, The Guardian, and every other media outlet. It is also comical how me commenting on a post about Stein gets me called a Hillary shill. If Hillary had as many "shills" (which since when does every supporter become a shill?) and paid off corrupt donorrs and politicians as people like you assert, she'd have be supreme commander overlord 10 years ago. Maybe just maybe not everything is a conspiracy against Trump/Stein/the right wing and not everybody who doesn't fall hook and sinker for blogosphere "journalism" is a shill. Guess what? People disagree you you.
[QUOTE=Demeschik;50967103]I was talking about Russian press. In Western media it seems [B]a bit[/B] Clinton-centric.[/QUOTE] Hah, a bit he said. A major news paper outlet here titled claiming trump was playing it dirty by attacking clinton on her health and how that is unpresidential, then as subtitle it said clinton has raised important awareness that trumps health checkup only lasted 5 minutes and how he very well could have cancer since its impossible to diagnose such illnesses in a 5 minute checkup. Edit; it was the biggest paper gazette in Belgium, Het laatste nieuws.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50965851]Can we break up the news corporation please? Ever since Bill Clinton allowed the telecoms industry to be deregulated and now a handful of corporations own all the news networks across the country shit like this is happening. Normally I'd be for deregulation since it's great that anyone could enter the industry, but in the case of the media brainwashing and controlling the flow of information like this it's a threat to democracy itself. Edit: And jesus the arrogant smirk on that news anchor as Jill Stein spoke, did they fucking know they would censor her?[/QUOTE] Mass Media is pretty crazy, it's something we haven't figured out yet. It's incredibly powerful, arguably more powerful than the most influential politicians. And we don't know how to keep it in line, how to keep it from being abused.
[QUOTE=SirJon;50967501]Mass Media is pretty crazy, it's something we haven't figured out yet. It's incredibly powerful, arguably more powerful than the most influential politicians. And we don't know how to keep it in line, how to keep it from being abused.[/QUOTE] well then you're getting into societal "control" mechanisms to deter immoral behavior or totalitarian/fascist control of the media by the state, which obviously has always worked great. I read a book which articulated it very well. It was called Assholes: a Theory or something of the like, very good, i do recommend it. The author made the point that for the longest time, religion served as the "asshole dampening device", which kept immoral behavior at by imposing a strict morale code on the populace. The better codes produced a better society, the worse ones dragged them down. Which is why Bhuddist, Confucian and western societies flourished, and shit ones deteriorated. Trouble is these days, we have a fascination in "freedom" at all costs, with no understanding or regard for possible consequences, and have widely rejected/dis-empowered religion as a cultural authority, we've basically dismantled the position of "asshole dampening device", and actively reject any replacement. During the 50's and 60's it was fine, because everyone survived the war and knew why they should be good to each other, and had the red menace to "fight" against, and for everyone in a society to oppose, and find solidarity with each other. Again, something we really don't have today. The author goes on about how if you reach a critical mass of assholes, society itself starts to deteroirate and become an "asshole capitalism' society, using russia or italy as an example. The point i'm trying to get to is, the only way to ensure good behavior of private enterprises with a grand responsibility, especially the media, is to have that asshole dampening device in place for any given society. Formerly it was a sense of community and wide spread principals, so people would hold each other accountable to an agreed on set of morales. But frankly modern day society has deemed that "oppressive" to the individual in a lot of circles, and with no ubiquitous religious authority, the only real drive people have is for their own ends. And in america, a country which fetishizes the man with no name, that's basically become a morale system of its own. Go check out the book, it's really good and articulates the entire concept very well
-snip, not worth arguing because it will go nowhere-
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.