CNN Resorts to Internet Censorship to Promote Hilary Clinton Over Bernie Sanders
114 replies, posted
[url]http://www.dailytech.com/CNN+Resorts+to+Internet+Censorship+to+Promote+Clinton+Over+Senator+Sanders/article37508.htm[/url]
[url]http://mediaequalizer.com/brian-maloney/2015/10/fuming-bernie-supporters-why-is-cnn-deleting-our-comments[/url]
[QUOTE]Time Warner Inc.'s (TWX) cable news channel CNN is in hot water over allegations of censorship and political propogandizing. After Tuesday night's Democratic national party debate amongst front-runners Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Bernard "Bernie" Sanders (I/D, Verm.), CNN took to the internet to poll watchers of who they thought won.
The result was a landslide for Sanders, with over 75 percent reporting he won. Only roughly 18 percent of folks though Clinton won the debate. And yet, in the wake, CNN persisted in its narrative that Clinton won, tapping Pundits to attack Sanders. The network focused on pedantic attacks on Sanders comments, while overlooking far more glaring misstatements from their chosen candidate Clinton, according to Media Equalizer, an independent political blog.
Citizens weren't buying it and took to CNN's website to voice their opinion that Sanders won.
That's when the censorship hammer dropped, according to CNN. Media Equalizer offers up the following snapshots of users complaining about mass censorship of pro-Sanders comments.
Devoted Sanders supporters have taken to repeatedly reposting the censored comments in an attempt to stay ahead of the media censors at the network. But it's clearly an ongoing battle, according to Media Equalizer's account. CNN, who again is owned by a Time Warner Inc., offered no acknowledgement of this pro-Hillary campaign of apparent media manipulation.[/QUOTE]
Not surprising.
"Clinton News Network"
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;48930478]I'd rather have Clinton than Sanders. All of his free programs would double our national debt. Silly.[/QUOTE]
I'm not very politically savvy, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it would work.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;48930478]I'd rather have Clinton than Sanders. All of his free programs would double our national debt. Silly.[/QUOTE]
So you are saying that this is why you think political censorship and propaganda which is the point of this thread is justified, or are you just rambling?
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;48930478]I'd rather have Clinton than Sanders. All of his free programs would double our national debt. Silly.[/QUOTE]
i'd rather have the debt be doubled for something good then have another 8 years of bumfuck nothing and bills i would never support
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;48930478]I'd rather have Clinton than Sanders. All of his free programs would double our national debt. Silly.[/QUOTE]
This is bait. Treat it as such.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;48930478]I'd rather have Clinton than Sanders. All of his free programs would double our national debt. Silly.[/QUOTE]
But Clinton is a human, just like us, and she adapts to new information, just like us, so it's very feasible that she will come up with some crazy ass ideas and do whatever donors tell her to do.
At least Bernie is honest. Clinton changes opinion too much for me to trust her.
I think CNN just realized that an internet poll probably wasnt the best indicator (given lots of Bernie fans are millenials with computers who swarm like bees).
[QUOTE=valkery;48930514]
At least Bernie is honest. Clinton changes opinion too much for me to trust her.[/QUOTE]
The problem with Hilary is that she doesn't have any opinions. She just does whatevers popular or whatevers in the interests of her donors.
I'm getting tired of these Bernie Sanders supporters whining about censorship, I can guarantee a vast majority of those who voted for Sanders did not even watch the debate, and blindly vote Sanders on every poll to make him look good. Polls like that are fucked with all the time.
I actually watched the debate. Sanders sucked. He flopped early on, started picking up a little steam when the topic turned to domestic policy, but then sucked the rest of the night. He made the mistake of praising one of his opponent,s which is now the only noteworthy soundbyte from his mouth during the debate.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;48930536]I'm getting tired of these Bernie Sanders supporters whining about censorship, I can guarantee a vast majority of those who voted for Sanders did not even watch the debate, and blindly vote Sanders on every poll to make him look good. Polls like that are fucked with all the time.
I actually watched the debate. Sanders sucked. He flopped early on, started picking up a little steam when the topic turned to domestic policy, but then sucked the rest of the night. He made the mistake of praising one of his opponent,s which is now the only noteworthy soundbyte from his mouth during the debate.[/QUOTE]
Nice generalization.
Did you even watch the debate? He did very well.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;48930536]I'm getting tired of these Bernie Sanders supporters whining about censorship, I can guarantee a vast majority of those who voted for Sanders did not even watch the debate, and blindly vote Sanders on every poll to make him look good. Polls like that are fucked with all the time.
I actually watched the debate. Sanders sucked. He flopped early on, started picking up a little steam when the topic turned to domestic policy, but then sucked the rest of the night. He made the mistake of praising one of his opponent,s which is now the only noteworthy soundbyte from his mouth during the debate.[/QUOTE]
Right cause over a million people just blindly voted Sanders
And moot should have won Time Person of the year.
tbh in the beggining Sanders had issues... Sanders eventually got back into the game, plus people caught on that Hilary may have rehearsed her answers.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;48930536]I'm getting tired of these Bernie Sanders supporters whining about censorship, I can guarantee a vast majority of those who voted for Sanders did not even watch the debate, and blindly vote Sanders on every poll to make him look good. Polls like that are fucked with all the time.
I actually watched the debate. Sanders sucked. He flopped early on, started picking up a little steam when the topic turned to domestic policy, but then sucked the rest of the night. He made the mistake of praising one of his opponent,s which is now the only noteworthy soundbyte from his mouth during the debate.[/QUOTE]
I'd love to know how you can guarantee it.
Frankly, Sanders performed very strongly through the middle and the end of the debate, and all of the candidates praised one another at some point.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;48930536]I'm getting tired of these Bernie Sanders supporters whining about censorship, I can guarantee a vast majority of those who voted for Sanders did not even watch the debate, and blindly vote Sanders on every poll to make him look good. Polls like that are fucked with all the time.
I actually watched the debate. Sanders sucked. He flopped early on, started picking up a little steam when the topic turned to domestic policy, but then sucked the rest of the night. He made the mistake of praising one of his opponent,s which is now the only noteworthy soundbyte from his mouth during the debate.[/QUOTE]
Ok well in the light if your guarantee the OP article and Bernie supporters look a bit silly, I'll give you that!
[editline]18th October 2015[/editline]
Do you have more important guarantees that I should know of?
You can support Sanders and also recognize that an internet poll was pulled for reasons besides, "There is a media conspiracy against him."
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;48930478]I'd rather have Clinton than Sanders. All of his free programs would double our national debt. Silly.[/QUOTE]
Read his tax plan, he has them all paid for, 0$ added to the deficit, however all the other candidates have either ridiculous tax plans or don't offer any clue how to fund their items
The issue I had was they made great pains to say Hillary outperformed everyone when the public opinion differs, and Sanders had the best answers of the night, he didn't get anything but a passing mention in the reviews of the debate
trump won the debate
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;48930478]I'd rather have Clinton than Sanders. All of his free programs would double our national debt. Silly.[/QUOTE]
If you are going off that Wall Street report, you know its bullshit right?
[QUOTE=Flameon;48930667]You can support Sanders and also recognize that an internet poll was pulled for reasons besides, "There is a media conspiracy against him."[/QUOTE]
Sure, we don't know why it was pulled.
But it was.
that on top of the positive coverage Hilary got, with the knowledge we have of the american media, we KNOW for a fact they are not above manipulating things.
So no, you're right, no one "knows" that's why, and it would be wrong to say that's why, but it would also be wrong, ignorant, and a good display of naivete of reality to pretend for a moment, that the american media doesn't have any stake in this.
Don't be naive.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;48930536]I'm getting tired of these Bernie Sanders supporters whining about censorship, I can guarantee a vast majority of those who voted for Sanders did not even watch the debate, and blindly vote Sanders on every poll to make him look good. Polls like that are fucked with all the time.
I actually watched the debate. Sanders sucked. He flopped early on, started picking up a little steam when the topic turned to domestic policy, but then sucked the rest of the night. He made the mistake of praising one of his opponent,s which is now the only noteworthy soundbyte from his mouth during the debate.[/QUOTE]
Except theres proof that both clintons have gotten tons of "donations" from CNN. But lets ignore that because we cant have a commie socialist in the white house "more like black house am i right?".
It is not just the polls people, Bernie won all the Focus groups as well.
The only polls he lost in is where the respondents did not actually watch the debate, or they did not watch and got their information from news sites that are heavily skewed in Hillary's favour.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;48930478]I'd rather have Clinton than Sanders. All of his free programs would double our national debt. Silly.[/QUOTE]
No it wouldn't.
He also wants to increase tax rates in higher bands back to pre Reagan rates and corporate tax. He also wants to reel in more tax avoiders.
Also paying to put people into work means you have to spend less on welfare
And properly regulating the health industry means pharmaceuticals cost way less, reducing the bills for public healthcare initiatives
Etc etc
My point is, increased spending comes with increased taxes, and increased spending pays for itself anyway.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48930692]Sure, we don't know why it was pulled.
But it was.
that on top of the positive coverage Hilary got, with the knowledge we have of the american media, we KNOW for a fact they are not above manipulating things.
So no, you're right, no one "knows" that's why, and it would be wrong to say that's why, but it would also be wrong, ignorant, and a good display of naivete of reality to pretend for a moment, that the american media doesn't have any stake in this.
Don't be naive.[/QUOTE]
What stake does the Media have?
These are the same media outlets thata have been drumming up the 'Hillary sucks' meta-narrative. I mean hell, even the New York Times (who HATE HILLARY) had a big piece on how well she did in the debate.
What do you think their stake is?
[QUOTE=Flameon;48930739]What stake does the Media have?
These are the same media outlets thata have been drumming up the 'Hillary sucks' meta-narrative. I mean hell, even the New York Times (who HATE HILLARY) had a big piece on how well she did in the debate.
What do you think their stake is?[/QUOTE]
I thought it's obvious what their stake is
[video=youtube;ON-7v4qnHP8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON-7v4qnHP8[/video]
Especially since Time Warner sponsors Hilarity.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48930739]What stake does the Media have?
These are the same media outlets thata have been drumming up the 'Hillary sucks' meta-narrative. I mean hell, even the New York Times (who HATE HILLARY) had a big piece on how well she did in the debate.
What do you think their stake is?[/QUOTE]
What do you think a media company is?
Oh that's right
It's a company.
It's primary goal is to make money.
You're right, if you're primary goal is to make money, what political candidate you support is IRRELAVENT.
Oh just in case you didn't know, that was sarcasm. It's very relevant.
Their stake in this is money. Their stake in this is control. They control the narrative, the media always has controlled the narrative. Lets look at historical cases where the media, controlled the story and narrative, and guided the message in a way they wanted.
The 92 LA Riots. There was a concerted media effort to display that man in a certain way.
More recently? Fergusson. Occupy. I mean you name it, the media has control of the narrative because that's where the average joe gets their information.
[B]Why do you think the media has nothing to gain, or lose?[/B]
Why wouldn't they make the same or more money saying Clinton lost the debate to Bernie?
[QUOTE=Flameon;48930791]Why wouldn't they make the same or more money saying Clinton lost the debate to Bernie?[/QUOTE]
The idea is that you pay a candidate and they pass legislation in your favor.
Theres a reason these companies pay both candidates during election time.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48930791]Why wouldn't they make the same or more money saying Clinton lost the debate to Bernie?[/QUOTE]
Are you that naive?
Clinton will throw them more bones than Bernie ever will. Clinton is not a clean politician and she's taken money from CNN in both of her campaigns.
This just in everyone, politics isn't affected by money. Flameon said so
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.