Does it show other people getting cut off? Or does that not happen, in sanman world?
I think the content of the footage makes it quite clear that CNN hosts are cutting people off without giving them an adequate chance to get their criticisms of Hillary Clinton across. This is why CNN is said to be the Clinton News Network. They're now one step away from Al-Jazeera.
So I'll take that as a cherry-picked sample. Did they leave in the footage where CNN hosts allowed people to finish their criticisms? Did they leave in footage of others being cut off while criticizing someone else?
The fun thing of editing footage to advance a narrative you want known is that you can ignore any and all things that contradict that narrative -- leave them on the cutting room floor, so to speak.
So you'd propagate the view that as long as CNN isn't cutting off Clinton critics at least 51% of the time, that it's doing a good job overall, on the whole.
No, they should be treating people impartially and fairly 100% of time, instead of acting as Clinton mouthpieces all too often.
Don Lemon is an idiot who only got his job because of his skin color, and not because he deserved it. Every time he opens his mouth, you can hear what a mental lightweight he is.
Well, no, since that's not what I said. I'll thank you not to put arguments in my mouth that I never made. Thanks in advance.
So every view espoused on CNN is equally valid, and deserving of equal "impartiality"? If I had two "experts" on CNN, one who said the moon's color is because of sunlight reflected toward earth, and another who said that the moon's color was due to the type of cheese it was made from, both opinions should be given equal validity?
Sometimes guests, Democrat and Republican, get cut off by the hosts because they're simply babbling talking points.
Don Lemon is exponentially smarter than you.
I'm actually surprised you don't like him more, given the fact that he has criticized the state of cable news (PROTIP: It's all crap!) and his own network more than pretty much every other CNN employee put together.
No, that was the argument you were advancing - ie. the mere presence of "some" inappropriate interactions is no big deal.
It's a big deal - it shows a lack of professional decorum and impartiality, and an overt bias towards Clinton and against critics.
Everyone deserves to have a chance to express their views, and audiences can be allowed to decide for themselves. You seem to be implying that CNN should decide for the audiences.
That becomes an easy fallback to justify any kind biased treatment, no matter how egregious.
I'd be surprised to see any examples of where those specific hosts (eg. Don Lemon) cut off a pro-Clinton speaker. I've watched a lot of CNN, and Lemon's biases are well known.
Nah, that guy is an ethnic token, who always sounds out of his league.
Lemon has never called out CNN for its pro-Clinton pro-Left biases.
Taking a position, then cherry-picking the evidence to support it, ignoring everything else and making no attempt to provide balance or statistical relevance.
This should probably be in the conspiracy theory section. It has all the hallmarks.
I would think someone would need to provide evidence something was cherry picked before making wild accusations, and drawing conclusion with no real basis in fact.
CNN is a pathetic news source, if the thinking is their content is not biased and neutral. However, if it's clear they are biased, like Fox News, its a different story.
Here is example of this bias from Don Lemon, CNN News Anchor, which destroy the claim they are neutral and unbiased, and which destroys their credibility as a claimed neutral player in the cable news field.
How many examples are there in the video of left-leaning guests and commentators being cut off?
How many examples are there in the video of right-leaning guests and commentators not being cut off?
How many examples are there in the video of left-leaning guests and commentators not being cut off?
As a percentage, how do they compare?
How big was the sample?
Do you think your video represents an objective overall sampling of guests and commentators of all political persuasions or is it narrowly targeted in order to achieve the desired result, to support the pre-conceived conclusion?
Taking a position, then cherry-picking the evidence to support it, ignoring everything else and making no attempt to provide balance or statistical relevance.
This should probably be in the conspiracy theory section. It has all the hallmarks.
Here's an idea: stop trying to tell me what I am thinking or saying. You might learn something.
Did they cut off other people or not? Yes or no are the only acceptable answers. Anything else is a deflection. Answer the question.
So ALL opinions deserve equal time on CNN? You sure you want to go down that road?
CNN is on 24 hours a day.
Obvs, the black guy is a token.
Where did you get your journalism degree? I know where I got mine.
Because they don't exist.
You want to do the Media Bias Dance with me? Have at it.
I think the content of the footage makes it quite clear that CNN hosts are cutting people off without giving them an adequate chance to get their criticisms of Hillary Clinton across. This is why CNN is said to be the Clinton News Network. They're now one step away from Al-Jazeera.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?