• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CNN and Trump

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Things to consider.

Trump blasts CNN, a relatively mild source of things critical to Trump. In fact, CNN has been basically pro-Trump: broadcasting his rallies and hiring his rejects, who end up being his mouthpieces on the network. And, what do they get for their suck up? A threat. Several threats actually.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...-cnn-bashes-trump-trump-may-block-merger.html

The White House is openly threatening to punish a (barely) adversarial outlet through selective regulatory enforcement. White nationalist Trump supporters are threatening to kill investigative reporters and assembling outside their homes.

Donald Trump has been president for less than six months.
Click to expand...
 
CNN has been pro Trump?

Up through the primaries everybody was pro Trump. Once he got the nomination that changed....immediately. It began with the absurd assault on Melania's speech at the convention and hasn't stopped. Jeb Bush even pointed out the plan during the primaries.
 
calamity said:
Things to consider.

Trump blasts CNN, a relatively mild source of things critical to Trump. In fact, CNN has been basically pro-Trump: broadcasting his rallies and hiring his rejects, who end up being his mouthpieces on the network. And, what do they get for their suck up? A threat. Several threats actually.

White House: If CNN Bashes Trump, Trump May Block Merger
Click to expand...

Trump was unhappy that even if what was reported was the truth, it was negative. They were not into sucking up to him. Hell, even Fox news took a few jabs from Trump because they were critical of him; until he became the nominee then it was the usual conservative bias to the only conservative candidate left. Trump doesn't like be painted as anything but the second coming of Christ.
 
Lutherf said:
CNN has been pro Trump?

Up through the primaries everybody was pro Trump. Once he got the nomination that changed....immediately. It began with the absurd assault on Melania's speech at the convention and hasn't stopped. Jeb Bush even pointed out the plan during the primaries.
Click to expand...
lol...yeah, imagine that. The gall of CNN calling out plagiarism. :roll:
 
ModerateRN said:
Trump was unhappy that even if what was reported was the truth, it was negative. They were not into sucking up to him. Hell, even Fox news took a few jabs from Trump because they were critical of him; until he became the nominee then it was the usual conservative bias to the only conservative candidate left. Trump doesn't like be painted as anything but the second coming of Christ.
Click to expand...

Clear sign of an authoritarian: bash media critical of you, reward media singing you praises.
 
calamity said:
Clear sign of an authoritarian: bash media critical of you, reward media singing you praises.
Click to expand...

So Obama was an authoritarian? I clearly remember him bashing Fox News and others who didn't necessarily worship at his feet.
 
humbolt said:
So Obama was an authoritarian? I clearly remember him bashing Fox News and others who didn't necessarily worship at his feet.
Click to expand...

Sure you did.
 
As long as Trump keeps doing and saying ridiculous things, news outlets are going to report it. Did CNN step over the line recently? Yes, and they paid for it with a retraction and resignation of two or three of their staff. If Trump wants respect from the majority of the nation, he's going to have to earn it.
 
CNN = Fake News
 
Trump -> Laser pointer, Media -> Cats
 
calamity said:
Things to consider.

Trump blasts CNN, a relatively mild source of things critical to Trump. In fact, CNN has been basically pro-Trump: broadcasting his rallies and hiring his rejects, who end up being his mouthpieces on the network. And, what do they get for their suck up? A threat. Several threats actually.

White House: If CNN Bashes Trump, Trump May Block Merger
Click to expand...

CNN had three times more Trump spokes persons on contract during the campaign than either MSNBC or FOX, and still has about three times more Trump Analysts on air than the other networks. All of their "panels" usually consist of 2-3 democratic panelists and the same number of republican/Trump panelists. My God, CNN still uses Jeffrey Lyons, the mouthiest, loudest, most worthless presidential spokes liar EVER... so you know they're trying to be fair, lol.

Do their anchors/reporters actually like Trump? Well, he's good for business but no, I doubt many of them voted for him, and some are clearly exasperated by his antics.

But they do have on a daily basis pro-Trump analysts and do not browbeat them any differently than they do the anti-Trump person also appearing. The CNN policy seems to be equality in representation of both sides in both quantity and (if available, lol) quality. I think they do a good job of it in a time where it's very difficult to appear fair to two very polarized groups who hear two different messages sent out with the same words.
 
humbolt said:
185,000 hits for "Obama bashes Fox News", so maybe my memory isn't as, ah, selective as yours.
Click to expand...

Let's see the "hit". I already debunked one in post 10.
 
Zyphlin said:
I'm sorry, I'm laughing to hard to even respond properly. No. Just....just no.
Click to expand...

If you didn't like my substantiation of that assertion in the op or the explanation in the article I cited, maybe you'll give the post below a read and some thought. It's rather well written and gets right to the point.

DiAnna said:
CNN had three times more Trump spokes persons on contract during the campaign than either MSNBC or FOX, and still has about three times more Trump Analysts on air than the other networks. All of their "panels" usually consist of 2-3 democratic panelists and the same number of republican/Trump panelists. My God, CNN still uses Jeffrey Lyons, the mouthiest, loudest, most worthless presidential spokes liar EVER... so you know they're trying to be fair, lol.

Do their anchors/reporters actually like Trump? Well, he's good for business but no, I doubt many of them voted for him, and some are clearly exasperated by his antics.

But they do have on a daily basis pro-Trump analysts and do not browbeat them any differently than they do the anti-Trump person also appearing. The CNN policy seems to be equality in representation of both sides in both quantity and (if available, lol) quality. I think they do a good job of it in a time where it's very difficult to appear fair to two very polarized groups who hear two different messages sent out with the same words.
Click to expand...
 
calamity said:
Let's see the "hit". I already debunked one in post 10.
Click to expand...

Well, there were 185,000 of them. You could Google what I mentioned and view all 185,000 of them yourself. No doubt some are repetitious, and some are junk, but that would still leave a rather substantial number validating my assertion as correct. Hell, you could watch a YouTube and see Obama doing it, if you were truly interested. So go take a look and debunk what you can. Looks like it might be a full time job for a while, doing all that debunking, but have at it.
 
humbolt said:
Well, there were 185,000 of them. You could Google what I mentioned and view all 185,000 of them yourself. No doubt some are repetitious, and some are junk, but that would still leave a rather substantial number validating my assertion as correct. Hell, you could watch a YouTube and see Obama doing it, if you were truly interested. So go take a look and debunk what you can. Looks like it might be a full time job for a while, doing all that debunking, but have at it.
Click to expand...

So, you got nothing to present except Google "hits." :lol:

I can find a million hits for Trump Treasonous bastard. Does that make it true?
 
calamity said:
So, you got nothing to present except Google "hits." :lol:

I can find a million hits for Trump Treasonous bastard. Does that make it true?
Click to expand...

That's the difference between Googling crap, of which there is plenty, and Googling something that has a basis in fact. It's pretty astounding that you either don't remember Obama bashing Fox News, or choose to ignore it. It isn't exactly a secret - Obama certainly wasn't shy about it and did it whenever the opportunity presented itself. And I wouldn't be surprised if you actually did Google Trump Treasonous bastard. Seems to be right up your alley these days.

Fox News jabs back at Obama over criticism - POLITICO

redalertpolitics.com/2014/02/02/obama-bashes-fox-news-in-oreilly-interview-on-benghazi-irs-scandal/

Obama Takes Another Swipe at 'Destructive' Fox News | The Weekly Standard

President Obama Engages in Media Criticism, Calls Out Fox News | Hollywood Reporter

Gutfeld: Obama "Bashes FNC More Than ISIS, And We Don't Behead Anybody" | Video | RealClearPolitics
 
humbolt said:
That's the difference between Googling crap, of which there is plenty, and Googling something that has a basis in fact. It's pretty astounding that you either don't remember Obama bashing Fox News, or choose to ignore it. It isn't exactly a secret - Obama certainly wasn't shy about it and did it whenever the opportunity presented itself. And I wouldn't be surprised if you actually did Google Trump Treasonous bastard. Seems to be right up your alley these days.

Fox News jabs back at Obama over criticism - POLITICO

redalertpolitics.com/2014/02/02/obama-bashes-fox-news-in-oreilly-interview-on-benghazi-irs-scandal/

Obama Takes Another Swipe at 'Destructive' Fox News | The Weekly Standard

President Obama Engages in Media Criticism, Calls Out Fox News | Hollywood Reporter

Gutfeld: Obama "Bashes FNC More Than ISIS, And We Don't Behead Anybody" | Video | RealClearPolitics
Click to expand...

Sorry, but those are not attacks; they are statements of fact.
 
humbolt said:
Heh. I'm sure, just like Trump's a traitorous bastard colluding with Putin to destroy the country.
Click to expand...

Not destroy, pillage.
 
calamity said:
If you didn't like my substantiation of that assertion in the op or the explanation in the article I cited, maybe you'll give the post below a read and some thought. It's rather well written and gets right to the point.
Click to expand...

What you said, and what DiAnna said, are in no way the same thing.

If I have three kids and one says "You only give money to the youngest child" and another says "You give money to all three children", they are not saying the same thing just because the youngest child is included in sum of the three children.

DiAnna was not making an argument that CNN is "pro-Trump". DiAnna was making an argument that CNN has individuals who are pro-trump, and attempts to have an equality in representation from both sides in terms of it's guests/talking heads.

You stated that CNN was "basically pro-Trump".

Those are MASSIVELY different things.

It would be akin to saying that "Hannity and Colmes" was "basically pro-Democrat" because they kept an even split ideologically with hosts, and when they had guests they always tried to have one Republican and one Democratic guest on. However, anyone that watched the show recognized quite clearly that DESPITE the fact that there was an equal amount of effort in having REPRESENTATIVES from both sides, the topics, how those topics were focused on, who was primarily driving those topics, and the caliber of guests on each side discussing those topics were generally skewed in a particular direction. So while they made an effort to have even representation by having "Pro-" individuals on both sides of the issues, when one watched it a clear skew was still readily apparent.

Even ignoring a skew being readily apparent, having equal representation is not the same as having a PRO-view to a particular side across a network.

Pointing to DiAnna's post is not in some fashion a condemnation of my response to you, nor some kind of validation of your post. If anything, it actually is simply an example of someone wasting the effort to actually point out to you that, at best, CNN could be called "neutral" rather than "pro-" anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom