CNN will get Trump re-elected

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Rogifan, Feb 20, 2018.

  1. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #1
    Just one example...adding snark and ‘fact checking’ into their chyrons. The first one isn’t a fact it’s CNN’s opinion. It’s fine for networks to have guests on who are Left or Right (and openly so) but the networks themselves should be non partisan. And CNN clearly is not. Since the Parkland shooting the network has been in full on gun control advocacy and their obsession with Russia is ridiculous. They will end up getting Trump re-elected. :rolleyes:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #2
    CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS/MSNBC carry water for liberals.

    Fox and talk radio carry water for conservatives.

    Nobody does straight news anymore.
     
  3. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #3
    If people argue that Russia's social blitz didn't affect anyone's vote - then neither will CNN.
     
  4. darksithpro macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #4
    Did you guys see the recent Jill Stein interview? I think it was on MSNBC. She said the MSM gave Trump 6 BILLION dollars worth of free air time, multiples more than her, Bernie and Hillary.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 20, 2018 ---
    It took you how long to figure this out? We've been saying this all a long.:D:p
     
  5. ThisBougieLife macrumors 68000

    ThisBougieLife

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Location:
    SF Bay Area, California
    #5
    How will they get Trump re-elected? I thought CNN was fake news that nobody watches?
     
  6. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
  7. darksithpro macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #7

    I don't watch TV either, but I like to YouTube the entertainment.
     
  8. Ledgem macrumors 68000

    Ledgem

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hawaii, USA
    #8
    Agree to that. But I used to read CNN's website as my main source of news, with the key word being "used to." The auto-playing videos became really annoying, and while blocking auto-playing videos theoretically fixes that, ever since Trump was elected I feel that they've been a bit unprofessional. I knew they were left-leaning and I was fine with that, but it's like there's not even an attempt at being objective. Some of the writing styles feel more like reading a blog than a major news article. I'm sure plenty of people like it, and I'll occasionally go over there if I want to read some degrading comments about Trump that echo my own thoughts, but on the whole I really don't like it. I get that Trump singles them out and says denigrating things or reposts ridiculous memes (which is also highly unprofessional of him), but I wish they wouldn't stoop to his level.

    The screenshots basically show the lack of professionalism that I feel has pervaded their written articles. I think Fox News is ridiculous, a belief that is reinforced most times I see their headlines in my Apple News (and doubly so when I give in to temptation and actually read an article), but CNN is fast becoming the Fox News on the opposite end of the political spectrum.
     
  9. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #9
    A Journalistic dilemma to be sure. How do you cover a president who consistently lies?
     
  10. Vanilla Ice macrumors 6502

    Vanilla Ice

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #10
    I flip back and forth from msnbc, cnn and Fox News on SiriusXM. They all have their ups and downs. Shame me from saying this, but Fox has more of the left vs right debates and it does get entertaining. That being said, President Trump will run on all the media hate. Even if it’s fake or real news.... This comes off random but I do wish Ron Paul would give it another shot in 2020. This way I’ll have more of an interest in the next presidential election.
     
  11. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #11
    I had a TV until 2004 and used to watch CNN too. What I see of clips now is a different animal. On the other hand I don't mind their disputing White House statements that are not factual. The Breitbart crowd and their patrons the Mercers have been about discrediting mainstream media for a long time. If you can discredit the free press then you can make up the facts as you go and who's to gainsay you?

    There's a lot of stuff coming out of that White House that is as off the wall as the occupant of the Oval Office who's causing them to have to defend him or deflect from his tweets and public pronouncements. They're sometimes into the whole thing of repeating a lie for long enough that finally it sticks, not as a lie but as a simple statement, which they hope becomes interchangeable in our minds at some moment and thereafter with fact.

    "Draining the swamp" for instance is 100% cowpies. Trump is repopulating the swamp with gators who like regulations for breakfast, who never saw a privatization option they didn't love and who hate unions and favor corporations over workers.

    And that's after redefining what the swamp is to begin with. We thought he meant K street. He meant the cabinet agencies whose rules have been meant to protect the people from the predations of corporate overreach.

    Do we care about what might happen when an Agriculture Department agency rule change moves the line speed of some chicken processing plants from 140 birds a minute to 175? That''s just the kill rate, and the kill line is mostly automated. They can't get the cutting rate that high since that's still way more human labor intensive... but if they move the kill rate up it means they do expect the cutting lines' rates to rise somewhat as well. Those were already at 40 or 50 birds a minute, or almost one bird per second. It's interesting to me that they dropped this proposed rule change for most plants and are now permitting the rate jacks to occur only in certain startup operations, not at established processing plants. To me that means non union, hungry outfits, new workers eager to prove their mettle and keep their jobs, willing to take more risks and perhaps ignorant of the dangers more experienced workers are all too well aware of. And also under the Trump administration the USDA has said if you run an established chicken processing plant and want a waiver on the line rates, just let them know and they can advise you on relevant criteria...

    But hey, it's not me going to chop off my own finger making a chicken into thighs and legs and breasts and wings at better than one bird per minute, so what do I care?

    But if I don't care, then what exactly do I mean by subscribing to the idea of making America great again?

    Oh, well I guess I mean making it great for me. There's no way in hell I would cut up chickens for a living anyway. And anyway I read about that rule change proposal getting dropped in the Washington Post so it was all fake news, right? Even though it was three or four years ago... before fake news became a thing... and way before the Trump administration revived the possibility of waivers on line speeds for cutting up chicken in America.

    The other thing of interest in that rule change was reduction of the number of inspectors and assigning some inspection duties to plant workers. Who knows if that one squeaked by in the new era of ditching regulations. I'll have to see if Fox News reports problems with people eating bad chicken sometime, and if not, then who cares, it must have been fake news too...

    What Trump is doing is installing agency bosses (confirmed chiefs or just acting deputies, whatever he can get in there) who are tasked to weaken the agencies and enable freer movement of the oligarchies we already permit too much leeway. As an American who does want to see a once vibrant democracy climb back out of the hole it's been digging at the oligarchies' bidding for about 35 years now, I resent that and resent even more his calling it "draining the swamp" since that's a 180º inversion of truth.

    I regard Trump himself as a grudge holder, a gaslighting specialist and also a magical thinker. He thinks something or other at a given moment so he says it because saying it makes it true. That's magical thinking if he really believes his own BS. Sometimes he doesn't even think it but his party needs us to think it so he just says it (again). That's politics in the age of hyperpartisanship. And sometimes he's just a guy with a chip on his shoulder who holds grudges and tells lies from our highest bully pulpit. Or he tells lies because he's somehow beholden to someone or something that precludes his being straight with us. His party tolerates all this for the most part, fearing his base will cost them the House if they criticize him.

    That all amounts to bad real news for the USA. The grudges, meh, Trump makes trouble for himself with those, but I want the press to keep pointing out the lies. And I want the GOP to go down in flames in November for going along with the proposal that "fake news" is a fault of mainstream media. The fake news most often comes straight out of that White House and that White House is perfectly willing to try to hang the other two branches of government out to dry if it gets the chance. They're in it for Trump and his cronies and peers in the 0.1% of America. The voters and a free press are all that stand in the way. Sure the press is imperfect. At least they make corrections after they make a mistake. Trump only doubles down when he gets it wrong. He's a mainstream bearer of fake news these days and doesn't want to miss a single opportunity to tweet it out there.
     
  12. Lloydbm41 Suspended

    Lloydbm41

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Location:
    Central California
    #12
    Bingo!
     
  13. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #13
    You may not like it, but both parentheticals are demonstrably true.

    I’m glad that they actually identify Trump lies. Many other networks do not. I saw numerous reports over the weekend on NBC and other networks noting the fact that Trump now claims never to have called allegations of Russian attempts at election interference a hoax, without identifying that statement as a blatant lie. They did the same thing over and over again during the campaign, failing to explicitly point out Trump’s lies. I’m glad to see someone in the media doing their job now. Maybe if they had done it earlier, we wouldn’t have this disaster.
     
  14. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #14
    Well, they’re right at least. But I agree, that is not right. However, that is rare and CNN is nowhere near as biased as Fox. I truly believe “mainstream liberal media” these days means actual news.... the country is left-leaning, and news not favorable to the minority is not “fake” by default.

    But, as I said, those particular headlines aren’t called for, but they are the exception, not the norm.
     
  15. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #15
    It looks like he will turn 84 in 2020. That means he would be nearing 90 at the end of the first term. That may be too old for such a stressful position.
     
  16. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #16
    I have to disagree. I think they are completely called for and long overdue. If the media does not identify Trump’s lies immediately and prominently, far too many viewers will falsely assume that what he said was correct. It is their job to inform the public and that’s what they are doing.
     
  17. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #17
    I understand the point being made here, but this is a special situation. Politicians lie, stretch the truth and twist things...but this is a guy whose lying is turbocharged, a guy who lies boldly and constantly, who expects not to be contradicted and attacks the people who do.

    What are the mainstream media to do? Report his lies straight? That would essentially pull them into the state media orbit, making them lite versions of Fox Fake News. The media don't exist to be parrots for the administration.

    I get that this makes it look like they're not reporting straight news, but I ask you, in all sincerity...how else would they keep themselves from being Trump puppets? Would it be better if they removed what you refer to as the snark? (I.e., simply adding "False" instead of "No, it's not"?) Would you prefer that news stories were followed by a brief, clearly marked editorial stating whether Trump's information is true or not? I'm talking about a single fact-checking reporter, not a panel of talking heads. Or do you have some other idea?

    Because the fact is that even though you may think these parenthetical comments will get Trump re-elected, just letting his lies go and reporting them without comment will also get him re-elected.
     
  18. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #18
    If it's the job to report the news, fact checking is part of that process.

    Some still want to hold the news more accountable that POTUS. And some of the same people enjoy irreverent tweets from Trump because he's not like any other President and then are shocked that he's covered by the media in a way unprecedented by the media.

    You simply can't have it both ways.
     
  19. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #19
    Negative press is better than no press I guess.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 21, 2018 ---
    Both of these headlines are subjective. What's it mean to "be tough" on Russia. Didn't Obama simply send food to Ukraine while they annexed part of their country?

    There's also no way of knowing if a social media campaign affected votes.
     
  20. Rogifan thread starter macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #20
    Now CNN is going after an old lady from Florida who supposedly unknowingly promoted a Russian coordinated pro-Trump event on Facebook. CNN. The network that gave Trump more airtime than just about anyone. CNN. The network that ran every rally Trump held giving him free media no other candidate got. But let’s pick on an old lady from Florida who shared something on her Facebook page. So now she can be harrassed by the internet mob. Yes CNN will get Trump re-elected. But maybe that’s what they want. Probably better for their ratings. :rolleyes:

    https://twitter.com/cnn/status/966134015337140229
     
  21. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #21
    It's not that subjective.

    And who said CNN was limiting "meddling" to social campaigns. The investigation is ongoing. There's no definitive answer yet. So Trump cannot say anything definitively. He can only suggest that at this time, it appears that it had no impact. It's not "clear" in the slightest. But you and I both know why Trump is saying this.
     
  22. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #22
    I think it's symptomatic of how the cable news is presented.
    [​IMG]

    The graphics are designed so that the gist of the news can be understood with the sound off-- and also as an invitation to turn up the volume. So... a more complex argument is distilled into its blunt essence.
    Screen Shot 170.png
     
  23. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #23
    Interviewing someone is not "going after" her. What she did is unquestionably newsworthy. I don't see why CNN shouldn't interview her. And, to be clear, she didn't just "share" something on Facebook. She ran a "Team Trump Broward County" Facebook page that organized and promoted Trump campaign events.
     
  24. Rogifan thread starter macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #24
    No it’s not. Especially considering the amount of airtime CNN gave Trump. That was far more significant than someone who promoted campaign events on Facebook.
     
  25. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #25
    Hot news story and they found access to someone unwittingly "recruited." Not sure what the problem is.
     

Share This Page

113 February 20, 2018