Monday, January 20, 2020

Die MSM, Die 1.2 - The Hook: CNN bites Bernie in the Ass


It was probably about twenty years ago that the US Right began to notice that CNN was trending towards the Democrats at least as much, and probably more so, than the likes of the NYT, which had not endorsed a GOP candidate for President for decades even then.

Naturally these claims of overt and covert bias (covert in terms of how a story was covered and which were covered), were dismissed by the Left as nothing more than examples of paranoia, whining, or trying to influence the "refs".

Mitt Romney debates Obama - and Candy, 2012
The Left's dismissals continued even in the wake of things like the Candy Crowley incident during a 2012 debate between Romney and Obama when Crowley, then working for CNN, intervened on Obama's behalf to bolster a claim by Obama.

But in 2016 the claim became a little more precise in that it was not "The Left" so much as one specific part of the Left - the Democrat National Committee (DNC) that CNN was carrying water for.

Donna Brazile

That year people on the Democrat Party Left - namely the Bernie Bros, supporters of Bernie Sanders - found out via Wikileaks that a CNN contributor (and DNC member) had been feeding debate questions to Hillary in advance of the debates.

That woman, Donna Brazile, had already had her contract temporarily suspended months earlier when she became head of the Democrat National Committee (DNC). This time she was fired by CNN, but the stench remained.


Debbie Wasserman Schultz



One amusing side-note is that Brazile had been appointed as the temporary head of the DNC after the previous leader, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had been fired when other hacked emails from Wikileaks also showed her bias toward Clinton over Bernie.

In the face of the terrible threat posed by OrangeManBad the Bernie Bros sucked it up and moved on.

But they've now discovered that CNN is up to its old tricks again.

Before the most recent Democrat debate, reports began to spread of a conversation between Bernie and fellow candidate Elizabeth Warren where Lizzie - actually Lizzie's "people" - claimed that Bernie had told her that a woman could not win. Ears pricked up at this news. Had the non-aggression pact between them finally broken? Did this mean that Fauxcahontas was going to hit Bernie in the debate with the Identity Politics stunt accusation that he's a misogynist? With these reports in the open there was no doubt that the question would be asked by the CNN debate moderators - and it was.

Leaving aside the to-and-fro barbs of the respective teams - since late last year Sanders's has been trying to imply that Warren is a stooge for the corporate status quo, while Warren's has tried to imply that Bernie's ideas are too Far Left for the general electorate - the latest burst of anger at CNN from the Bernie Bros has real substance to it. CNN asked the question:
Moderator Abby Phillip: CNN reported yesterday that, and Senator Sanders — Senator Warren — confirmed in a statement, that in 2018 you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?
Sanders then goes into a pretty detailed and genuine answer as to why that claim is crap. He cites his past support for woman candidates, including hitting the hustings hard in 2016 for the woman who had beaten him in the primary race, despite his misgivings about the stunts she'd pulled. He looked like he was keeping his cool while also being genuinely pissed off at the attack. It was a good, solid answer, and there was a brief follow-up:
Phillip: You’re saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman couldn’t win the election? 
Bernie: Correct.
So what does the CNN moderator do, having heard this substantive and direct rebuttal? She turns to Warren with the following question:
Phillip: What did you think when Sanders said a woman couldn’t win the election?
Wow. How about that? It's as if the question was already scripted and the narrative set by CNN and Sander's answer did not count for anything at all. A setup between CNN and Warren. I guess she's the Hillary of 2020.

Further proof of CNN taking sides was what happened after the debate ended, when Warren walked over to Sanders, refused to shake his hand and said:
“I think you called me a liar on national TV.”
Sanders wisely did not rise to the bait, simply saying that they should not have that argument in such a very public, if off-air, moment. Except it was not off-air: CNN had captured the moment on audio & video - and then broadcast it to the world, complete with a Bernie Bashing exercise around it that lasted all day.

Welcome to the Righties world, Bernie. And good luck, since as a public figure you won't be able to sue them as young Mr Sandman successfully did just recently.

Of course the one thing that Righties would never have after a blatantly biased media attack like this, is other MSM sources backing them up, aside from FoxNews obviously.  By contrast Bernie got substantial MSM backing:
This time, the whole network tossed the mud. Over a 24-hour period before, during, and after the debate, CNN bid farewell to what remained of its reputation as a nonpolitical actor via a remarkable stretch of factually dubious reporting, bent commentary, and heavy-handed messaging.
Oh - so you noticed that Mr Taibbi? At least this time. We'll see if you or those others notice it later in 2020 when Trump is once again their target.

This... is CNN.

But actually it's the rest of the MSM as well. This is just a temporary circular firing squad.

31 comments:

Snowflake said...

Where’s the post on Fox News, Breitbart and that onanists at OAN given your no doubt genuine concerns for media objectivity? One would think otherwise that this is just paranoia, whining and trying to influence the ref. I know it’s upsetting when journalists do such dastardly things as record what people like Trump and Palin say and then play it back on TV. Terribly, terribly negative, I get that, but these are the morons you have tied your wagon to.

Tom Hunter said...

So what you're saying is that you hate Bernie too!

Actually Bernie probably would get a fairer shake on FoxNews.

I could not care less about media objectivity since they have none and it's killing them - at least its killing the likes of CNN, who are competing in the same Left lane as most of the others while Fox Neas has got the Right ane pretty much to itself.

Smart businessman that Murdoch.

What I really object to is that clowns like CNN have an agenda but pretend that they don't, and get all huffy when they're called on it instead of owning it. It's not like they're fooling anybody.

Well, aside from you that is. 😉

Snowflake said...

You think they have an agenda because your views are way out on the far right of the political spectrum. But as you say, you’re paranoid and whining.

I don’t hate Bernie. He’s too old to be President, but as you know, he or anyone in the world really, would be a vast improvement on the moron you’ve hitched your wagon to.

Tom Hunter said...

The Bernie Bros think they have an agenda - an anti-Bernie agenda because, just as in 2016, they're carrying water for the DNC.

Snowflake said...

Meh. That’s the view you’d like to promote I guess and you’ll create the evidence, given your paranoia. Where’s your examination of fair and balanced Faux News? I’m sure you’re interested in who Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, “judge” Jeannie, Jesse Watters, Lou Dobbs and co are carrying water for.

Tom Hunter said...

As the Bernie Bros have pointed out, the evidence is right there in front of your eyes.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Snowflake doesn't have eyes. He/she/it uses a Braille keyboard.

Snowflake said...

Actually the "evidence" you have produced is remarkably thin, Tommy. A debate question and a hot mic, which demonstrates nothing like what you claim it does. Yawn, scratches balls. You've actually watched Fox right?

Tom Hunter said...

Yes, I thought you might come out with that silly assertion so I updated the piece with some links to other people who, like me - even if on the other side of the ideological fence - also think the evidence is solid.

The Chicago Trib, The Nation, Rolling Stone - all those hotbeds of RWNJ's.

So much so that it makes it look like it's you who is on the denialist fringe of this debate - actually!

Snowflake said...

Meh, they’re all repeating the same talking points and it’s drawing a pretty long bow. Good job by Sanders’ spin doctors I guess, but still pretty lame. Not exactly like Fox being in the tank for the Second Coming of God.

Rusty Arrow said...

Tom is operating under the mistaken assumption that US has a Left and a Right party, when in fact it has a Right Party (Dems) and a Further Right Party (GOP). Not surprising for a country where education standards are so low that they cannot tell the difference between Communism, Socialism, Democratic Socialism, and Mixed Economies, lumping them all under the banner Communist.

Party discipline in the US is not as tight as in the Westminster descendants. It is not unusual for US representatives to vote against the party, whereas in the UK/NZ it is pitchforks and tarrings. And Dog forfend anyone should dare break "Cabinet solidarity".

It is that lack of party discipline that allows a lifelong Democrat to stand and win the Republican nomination for POTUS. No need to fill out a membership form, just declare your hand and write a check.

CNN, despite what the voices in Thom's head tell him, is no different to the other media. They all defend the status quo, the grand game that keeps them close to power. They are in the pockets of Wall Street, fuck, they are Wall Street. Neither CNN or Fox, Hilary or The Donald, saw a war they didn't want to take part in, a pile of cash they didn't want for themselves.

Sanders is an outlier, just as some of the new arrivals in The House, determined to wrest control of the DNC from the grasping, thieving, money changers in the temple. I doubt he will succeed, but more strength to his arm in trying.

Sanders poses an existential threat to the BAU on both sides of the aisle, and they are out to get him, by fair means or foul. Mostly foul. You can already see the same playbook used against Corbyn coming into play. Attempts to label sanders as an enemy of Israel, an anti-semite. That's right, they are trying to tar a Jew with anti-semitism. That is the fear you can see in their eyes, hear in their voices, smell on their pages.

And just as Thom's dad fell for the Italian grandma calling "Ehi, Kiwi! Salame fresco e figa pulita.", younger Thom has swallowed the bait whole.



RosscoWlg said...

Farty Sparrow for a minute there I thought you were going to give us a thoughtful piece on US politics, but how wrong I was:

1. The usual personal hack at Tom
2. The complete bullshit of the nice Mr Corbyn who's just a misunderstood centrist.
3. The nice Mr Sanders is just a victim of the evil MSM after all there is no real Left in the US.

4 out of 10 back to the drawing board for you Eggie3.

PS you need help with your multiple personalities.. I know just the person for you...

Anonymous said...

Such extraordinary dedication and effort by Tom Hunter over thee last few months to promote his world view but has anyone told him that the 0.0154% of New Zealand Population who read this are actually ineligible to vote in the US elections.

Just askin'

A serious Australian soldier

Tom Hunter said...

... but has anyone told him that the 0.0154% of New Zealand Population who read this are actually ineligible to vote in the US elections.

That fact doesn't seem to have reduced the extensive coverage of the USA and US politics in New Zealand on TV, radio and social media.

I already dealt with a similar piss and moan about my US coverage a few days ago on another of the Impeachment threads:

Message to whoever the fuck Tom is WE do not give a shit about the US problems

... with this response:

... like it or not the USA is a big part of our world, the US President is a big part of that, and this particular President is yuuugggeee, judging by the obsession the Left have with him worldwide.

What you're really objecting to is that my take on the USA and Trump is the opposite of the rest of the news coverage of those topics in NZ, which is almost entirely negative almost all the time. You're comfortable with that and are irritated by having your cozy assumptions and lazy assertions challenged.

Anonymous said...

There you go again, confusing center, center left and center right with the left. When you actually tell us where the US center is compared with the NZ center you might actually make sense.

As for negativity I would suggest that it is policies that bring the shitstorm down on his bad hair head. Just address the subjects of removing healthy school meals and health care from the most vulnerable for a change.

You swamp us with volume without content.

A Serious Australian Soldier

Tom Hunter said...

@Rusty Arrow

I must say I admire that you put it out there, Makes a nice change compared to the silly posturing of commentators who variously claim they're not interested or don't care or refuse to ever take a positive position they'd have to defend so they can stay constantly on attack or just go for 100% personal attacks on me, as if that will stop me writing these pieces.

where education standards are so low that they cannot tell the difference between Communism, Socialism, Democratic Socialism, and Mixed Economies, lumping them all under the banner Communist.

That's actually working to Bernie's advantage right now as he bullshits people about how he's just a cuddly Social Democrat who wants for the USA what the Scandanavian countries have - not Cuba, Venezuela and all the rest. I doubt any MSM, not even CNN will ask him specifically why he's changed his tune...

Sanders would like the public to believe, as an AP story put it, that “democratic socialism [is] the economic philosophy that has guided his political career.” But that has not always been the case. In 1977, he left the tiny left-wing Liberty Union Party of Vermont that he’d co-founded, and in 1980 instead aligned himself with the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), the self-proclaimed Trotskyist revolutionary party, became its presidential elector in Vermont, and campaigned for its candidates and platform that defended the Iranian hostage seizure.

That last is pretty radical, as the article goes on to explain

Virtually all Americans—Democrats, Republicans and independents—united in support of the hostages and the international call for their freedom. One prominent political figure on the 2020 stage, then almost completely unknown, stood apart by joining a Marxist-Leninist party that not only pledged support for the Iranian theocracy, but also justified the hostage taking by insisting the hostages were all likely CIA agents. Who was that person? It was Bernie Sanders.

Which means he fitted in perfectly with the leader of the SWP in 1980, Andrew Pulley:

the U.S. “was on the brink of war with Iran,” which would be fought “to protect the oil and banking interests of the Rockefellers and other billionaires.”

As for the hostages, Pulley said “we can be sure that many of them are simply spies… or people assigned to protect the spies.”


Sounds like he's your kinda guy alright, just like Bernie.

I've seen claims here that Bernie's policies today could see him fitting into the NZ National Party since he is now running as a Democrat. In light of this history and his many paens to communists nations, including the USSR where he had his honeymoon in 1988, that claim is utter bullshit. And like more than a few commentators here he's still a blame-America-first old crank.

Tom Hunter said...

@Serious Australian Soldier
When you actually tell us where the US center is compared with the NZ center you might actually make sense.

Do I really have to explain that on a political blog? The USA is right of centre compared to NZ due to their history and culture.

However, the success of Bernie Sanders should tell us that the USA is nowhere near as Right as it was even a decade ago.

I would suggest that it is policies that bring the shitstorm down on his bad hair head
Some of his policies - like pulling US troops from many nations around the world, and especially from places like Afghanistan, have been pushed by his Leftist opponents for years - yet they hate him as badly as the GOP neoconservatives do. Same with domestic economics where it's pretty much accepted that his appeals to working class people were awfully similar in some ways to those made by Bernie Sanders. Some Democrat activists seem to understand this, even in 2016 - but they also still hate his guts.

So I'd say it's 70% personal loathing and 30% policies.

Tom Hunter said...

@Rusty Arrow

CNN, despite what the voices in Thom's head tell him, is no different to the other media. They all defend the status quo, the grand game that keeps them close to power. They are in the pockets of Wall Street, fuck, they are Wall Street.

Does that include the MSM sources I listed who have defended Bernie and got stuck into CNN? Obviously ye olde Communist newspaper The Nation has always stood apart from your description of US media - but the Chicago Tribune, Rolling Stone and Newsweek?

Anonymous said...

@TH,

The troop withdrawal from Syria wasn't policy it was knee jerk. It was never discussed with the commanders on the ground or indeed the many allies. Unfortunately for your narrative many were sent back when it looked like some oil fields may fall to the Turks or Russians.

The Afghanistan troop withdrawal was Obama's admin decision and was completed in 2016 leaving 8000 garrison troops. Under Trump extra troops were SENT bringing the total now to 14,000.

All your posts are full of misinformation and Trumpetian fibs like this so just answer the hapless young mans question. What actually has he achieved?

NZ Center right is just left of the Dems. The worlds far right is just about where Trump sits.

'arry

Tom Hunter said...

@ 'arry

So on the one hand you and others are sick of hearing about the USA and Trumo on this blog - while on the other hand you keep demanding "answers".

The troop withdrawal from Syria wasn't policy it was knee jerk. It was never discussed with the commanders on the ground or indeed the many allies.
How do you know? "Unamed sources" at the WaPo and NYT? Haven't you been fooled by those enough already?

By contrast it came as no surprise to me once ISIS had been defeated. They'll be another Jihadist set of nutters arising from their wreckage as usual, but that's no reason to leave US troops there in large numbers, which is why according to the Pentagon (not Trump) they're down to 1000 (from 2000+ in 2018)..

And of course with regard to Afghanistan I said that it's Trump's policy to pull all US forces, which he is clearly aiming for with all the negotiations going on with the Taliban. And of course in 2017 he did the exact opposite what you claim, listening to the Pentagon and allowing them to send an extra 3000 troops as a supposed temporary measure. Plenty of reports about how he's not happy about having 14,000 in-country but recognises the reality of the situation - just as Obama did when he sent troops back into Iraq after the ballyhooed total withdrawal in 2011. Doesn't mean that his policy has changed: he still wants to pull them - and when he does they'll be screams about that too, just as there was in Syria.

Stop pretending that you're actually thinking about this and doing anything other than 100% attack on Trump for any decision he makes. That's just one-eyed stupidity, and you're just relying on MSM coverage that swings between screaming "kneejerk" when he pulls troops and - when he adds troops - sniffing with condescension that he's been browbeaten by the Pentagon and "reality". Like any partisan you want it both ways.

The worlds far right is just about where Trump sits.
As I've said before: lazy assertions and lazier assumptions that you don't like havving challenged. Trump's actual policies have been little different in many areas than what a "normal" GOP president's would have been, as even some of his right-wing critics have accepted.

To accept your definiton of "far right", I'd have to know what your centre is. Somewhere near Corbyn it seems.

Anonymous said...

I wish this was a video link, watching you squirm, duck and dive while I sit back with my morning coffee. When you hit bedrock stop digging.


Priceless

'arry

Philosopher Unauthorised said...



President Donald Trump has been banging the drums of war in recent days, pointing the finger at Iran for a massive drone attack on Saudi Arabia oil fields that caused the price of oil worldwide to spike.

But on Sunday, President Trump admitted – even bragged – that U.S military forces are “locked and loaded.”. Trump also made clear he would be more than happy to order a strike on whatever country the Saudis tell him to hit.

That’s not how the U.S. Military has ever been used. They are not soldiers of fortune, they are not mercenary forces.

We, Trump said, “are waiting to hear from the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!”

Those words stunned many, with some – like MSNBC’s Chris Hayes – effectively translating the realities of Trump’s remarks: That the allegedly murderous Saudi Prince known as “MBS” is their new leader.


https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2019/09/saudi-arabia-pays-cash-trump-admits-unlike-other-presidents-hell-be-renting-out-us-troops-for-military-action/

During President Donald Trump’s interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham on Friday, the president spoke about his positive relationship with Saudi Arabia, including how the country is paying to use American troops. Conservative Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.), who until recently was a Republican, responded to Trump’s remarks in a tweet, saying, “He sells troops.”

“Saudi Arabia is paying us for [our troops]. We have a very good relationship with Saudi Arabia,” Trump said. “I said, listen, you’re a very rich country. You want more troops? I’m going to send them to you, but you’ve got to pay us. They’re paying us. They’ve already deposited $1 billion in the bank.”


https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-brags-about-serving-up-american-troops-to-saudi-arabia-for-cash-936623/

“We are sending troops and other things to the Middle East to help Saudi Arabia,” said President Trump while talking to reporters outside the White House on Friday afternoon.

“Are you ready? Saudi Arabia, at my request, has agreed to pay us for everything we’re doing. That’s a first!” he added. “And we appreciate that.”


https://www.dawn.com/news/1510571

Tom Hunter said...

... like MSNBC’s Chris Hayes – effectively translating...

It's an example of your delusions that you're willing to allow a twit like Hayes to "translate" anything.

I think you're big problem is that you listen to what Trump says rather than what he actually does, Which is why we have these wild swings from his critics - from saying he's about to start WWIII to how he's a blowhard and a pussy that nobody respects or fears.

And of course both you obsessed people do realise that this OP was originally supposed to be about Bernue Sanders and CNN, no?

Of course you don't. Everything has to be about Trump - and then you bitch about that.

You want more troops? I’m going to send them to you, but you’ve got to pay us
Excellent! Given that money is fungible it's effectively the same message he's sending to NATO. You want us to work with you in Europe? Pony up the money. It's merely the "translation" that tries to make it sound like something different in the case of Saudi Arabia.

But I'll get to such arguments in my own time on a separate OP dedicated to the subject. Unlike you I have other interests.

watching you squirm,
I'd be squirming if you were able to make an argument. Luckily you never can, although you think assertions are the same thing.

Funnily enough I'm having my morning coffee too while writing an article on a subject completely unrelated to Trump. We'll see if you and others can stay on-topic for that one.

======
And now back to CNN and their bias against poor old Bernie.

PJM said...

Tom, you are a genius. I know that you think in Goofy's voice, and now I see it's possible to even write in Goofy's voice.

Tom Hunter said...

Thanks PJM. But actually I'm very humble about such things, starting with the fact that I only seem like a genius because you're here. It's your gift to humanity.

Tom Hunter said...

Jesus Christ - even the commentators on Pete Georges blog are better than this.

Tom Hunter said...

And still no abilty to comment on CNN vs Bernie. It seems even Rusty Arrow hit his limits after his huge Capitalist Conspiracy rant against the MSM.

Tom Hunter said...

LOL!

Tom Hunter said...

You know, I've been pretty generous to some of the retards who comment here - especially:
- The Maquis of Toulon
- In hoc signo vinces

But I just looked at my first OP here at NoMinister on January 14, 2019 and saw these two rules of mine for deleting fucktards:

THE TROLL This can vary. Taking a thread deliberately off topic is my personal bugbear. If it moves that way with multiple comments then so be it, but something that pulls that stunt right from the start is out. Hugh Pavletich on KB is a classic: multiple comments of massive cut-and-paste screeds about housing, with links back to his own blog. I even agree with some of his points, but he demonstrates every day that he does not give a shit about others and is simply banging his own drum. Denis Horne (aka "William of Ockham") and Robert Guyton are much the same.

THE ASSHOLE: IPrent from The Standard. Admittedly SysOps are of low breeding and lower moods, convinced that their giant brains are the only thing keeping companies afloat above their basement hovels, that everybody else is stupid, and with all the social skills of an autistic eunich. I've fired more than a few and felt immense gratification every time. A full definition of the asshole would take too long: I think we'll all know one when we see one.

So as much as I have appreciated the clicks that have added to the pageviews of my OPs I'm going to dump into SPAM some of the comments here that are nothing more than empty-headed attacks and/or off-topic, derailing efforts. And I'm going to start doing that regularly from here on.

It may reduce the clicks, but if it has a chance if improving the debate, which at least Rusty Arrow and Petri Dish do supply from time to time, then its worth doing.

Anonymous said...

No, it's merely an excuse to censure adverse comment. This is not unusual in the world of the neo fascist.

If I may take one of your posts as an example of pot kettle black...

....................................................................................Blblogger Tom Hunter said...

It is doubtful now that Trump will survive the impeachment process...

Snork..
...
chuckle..
...
BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHHHAHAHAH

You really don't have a fucking clue how the USA works, do ya chief.

January 17, 2020 at 1:37 AM
....................................................................................

Some may describe that as arsholery, others may be amused but opinions of comments are in the eye of the beholder. Like Trump your ego is becoming tiresome.

Dave Jones

Anonymous said...

Or it could be that Tom knows far more about the USA than most people.
I've yet to see anyone put up a counter argument that is credible.

As for Trump, none of my business really..

Oddball