Utopia Talk / Politics / Twitter bans negative coverage of CNN

Rugian Member	Fri Apr 16 10:14:32 Earlier this week, Project Veritas released a secretly-recorded video of an interview with a CNN technical director. In it, the director boasts of how the network: -"got Trump out of office" through manipulative and misleading coverage -played up the COVID death toll because "fear really drives [our] numbers" -is doing its best to provide positive coverage of BLM One day after releasing the video, Twitter permanently suspended both Project Veritas and James O'Keefe, citing “repeated violations of Twitter’s private information policy.” What Project Veritas apparently failed to realize is that criticism of establishment media is now verboten. CNN is good, and if you disagree you should be censored and disappeared.
Rugian Member	Fri Apr 16 10:15:28 Would it be appropriate to say that CNN and Twitter are "colluding" to control the narrative?
Sam Adams Member	Fri Apr 16 10:18:43 Isnt CNN a part owner in twitter?
Paramount Member	Fri Apr 16 10:19:45 ” Project Veritas released a secretly-recorded video of an interview with a CNN technical director” Maybe the video was a deep fake.
Paramount Member	Fri Apr 16 10:24:04 Project Veritas is an American far-right[37] activist group Project Veritas uses entrapment[23] to generate bad publicity for its targets,[2] and has propagated disinformation[14] and conspiracy theories[56] in its videos and operations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas
Rugian Member	Fri Apr 16 10:24:54 Wikipedia Lol
Rugian Member	Fri Apr 16 10:33:48 "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors leftist politics May 21, 2020 Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger penned a blog post last week declaring that the site is “badly biased,” “no longer has an effective neutrality policy” and clearly favors lefty politics. Sanger – who is no longer with involved with Wikipedia – wrote that it has long forgotten its original policy of aiming to present information from a neutral point of view, and nowadays the crowd-sourced online encyclopedia “can be counted on” to cover politics with a liberal point of view. “There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard of journalistic ‘false balance,’ which is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy. As a result, even as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science,” Sanger wrote. “Examples have become embarrassingly easy to find.” The first example pointed out by the site’s co-founder is that President Barack Obama’s page “completely fails to mention many well-known scandals” such as Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal and the so-called "Fast and Furious" operation. “A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good,” he wrote. “The article is almost a total whitewash. Meanwhile, as you can imagine, the idea that the Donald Trump article is neutral is a joke.” Sanger then examined the differences between Trump and Obama’s entries, noting there are “5,224 none-too-flattering words” in the “Presidency” section of Trump’s page. “By contrast, the following ‘Public Profile’ (which the Obama article entirely lacks), ‘Investigations,’  and ‘Impeachment’ sections are unrelentingly negative, and together add up to some 4,545 words—in other words, the controversy sections are almost as long as the sections about his presidency,” Sanger wrote. “Wikipedia frequently asserts, in its own voice, that many of Trump’s statements are ‘false.’ Well, perhaps they are. But even if they are, it is not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia article to say so, especially without attribution.” Sanger feels anyone who approves of Wikipedia’s editorializing of Trump’s statements “must admit” they no longer support a policy of neutrality on Wikipedia. He then lists Hillary Clinton, abortion, drug legalization, religion and LGBT adoption as other topics covered with a liberal bias. “It is time for Wikipedia to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV (i.e., neutrality as a policy). At the very least they should admit that they have redefined the term in a way that makes it utterly incompatible with its original notion of neutrality, which is the ordinary and common one,” Sanger wrote. “Of course, Wikipedians are unlikely to concede any such thing; they live in a fantasy world of their own making.” http://www...utrality-favors-lefty-politics
Paramount Member	Fri Apr 16 10:48:07 ” The first example pointed out by the site’s co-founder is that President Barack Obama’s page “completely fails to mention many well-known scandals” such as Benghazi” Uhm no From Obamas wikipage: he next day, on Obama's orders, the U.S. military took part in air strikes to destroy the Libyan government's air defense capabilities to protect civilians and enforce a no-fly-zone,[414] including the use of Tomahawk missiles, B-2 Spirits, and fighter jets.[415][416][417] Six days later, on March 25, by unanimous vote of all its 28 members, NATO took over leadership of the effort, dubbed Operation Unified Protector.[418] Some Representatives[419] questioned whether Obama had the constitutional authority to order military action in addition to questioning its cost, structure and aftermath.[42 ...and then they link to Benghazi’s own wikipage, where the Benhazi story belongs.
Paramount Member	Fri Apr 16 10:51:58 ” A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good,” he wrote. “The article is almost a total whitewash. Meanwhile, as you can imagine, the idea that the Donald Trump article is neutral is a joke” I don’t think Adolf Hitler’s or Nazi Germany’s wikipage is neutral either. A fair article about them must include some good things about them also, and not only the bad stuff.
Paramount Member	Fri Apr 16 11:10:15 Anyhow... Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. ^ that wiki always is going to be fair and neutral is not likely.
Habebe Member	Fri Apr 16 11:36:32 Veritas is no less shady than CNN.
Rugian Member	Fri Apr 16 11:46:49 Habebe By all means, if any one of us ever has Project Veritas TV running in the background every day, feel free to call us out for it. They clearly have an agenda to push, and no one should confuse them with objective journalism. Just as no one should confuse CNN with the same.
Habebe Member	Fri Apr 16 12:26:48 Rugian, I think the video speaks for itself. Veritas is under cocer journalism, which has a great tradition in the US like Upton Sinclair. I would likely see the un edited version, but I dont see how you get around getting caught red handed. Couple this with the email leaks and their own admittance of a shadow conspiracy to "fortify" an election. And it really paints a picture of what the fake news really does.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Apr 16 12:36:30 i watched all of part 3 (except skipping any parts where O'Keefe speaking): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mdc1r5-vw is there a scandal in that part from the alleged CNN guy? i don't see anything at all... nothing... please direct me to it if part 1 or 2 better, direct me to the portion, i've watched enough of the proven-to-be-deliberately-deceptive 'project veritas' for now
Rugian Member	Fri Apr 16 12:44:08 Foisting BLM onto the general public by shilling for them doesn't strike me as "objective" news...maybe you disagree though. Part 1 is presumably the Trump one, go watch that.
Habebe Member	Fri Apr 16 12:49:10 Not airing black on Asian hate crimes because it sends a bad message.... So presumably only white. TW, Its soet of like the WP airing video/audio of Trump. Yes they habe itnout for them, but the video speaks for itself.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Apr 16 13:15:56 ok, let me explain guy notes the occasional black attacks on asians & ponders why CNN not covering it more (so offering NOTHING about CNN policy, just his opinion)... also they -did- show the asian outside the hotel or whatever who was assaulted (& not like they focus on mere assaults by whites either), plus they covered the rioting last year -way- more than the peaceful protesting so hard to say they were trying their best to make BLM look good & he notes the hazards of doing repeated individual assault stories (like when Breitbart had a 'black crime' section) but again, -all- of his comments are just his opinions, he's offering NOTHING in his role as an employee, no 'the bosses said to do...' so he's offering nothing more than any viewer could on saying media can being propaganda, everyone knows that, and his example is 'coal is the future'... which was -Trump's- message & how Fox News & others provided propaganda to the ravings of that fucking moron. so there's ZERO in part 3 give me time stamps in part 1 or 2 if you think there's something of note (& not O'Keefe's characterization)
Rugian Member	Fri Apr 16 13:25:33 He admitted that CNN shills for BLM, and you see nothing wrong with that. Okay. I'm saving this thread for the next time you have a problem with Fox slobbering all over Trump.
Habebe Member	Fri Apr 16 13:27:21 "plus they covered the rioting last year -way- more than the peaceful protesting so hard to say they were trying their best to make BLM look good" A picture is worth a 1k words....you know which one Im talking about. I have not seen the video in its entirety, but I will later and get back to you with TS. But his opinion of the network he works for is important. You who would take the word of an unknown Trump staffer or a disgruntled fires employee (Bolton?) against Trump's at the drop of a hat, but this is just the opinion of one guy unrelated to his job. For me this is just more evidence of what I already believed about CNN, that is mostly a propaganda outlet for the DNC. And yes, the opposite is true for Fox.They Honestly lately My most watched news source has been rising with Krystal and Saagar. While O dont agree with many of their opinions, I do think they actually try to report news and not jist propaganda.
Habebe Member	Fri Apr 16 13:31:36 http://www.projectveritas.com/ For anyone habing trouble.finding the fill.clips as released*
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Apr 16 13:36:30 "He admitted that CNN shills for BLM" no he didn't... also "BLM" to many people just means "Black Lives Matter"... i know of Fox News it means marxist ideology & violence, but i guarantee many aren't aware of anything beyond the 3 words --------- "A picture is worth a 1k words....you know which one Im talking about." actually, the words he was saying were far more important than the words written on the screen at that moment "But his opinion of the network he works for is important. You who would take the word of an unknown Trump staffer or a disgruntled fires employee (Bolton?) against Trump's at the drop of a hat, but this is just the opinion of one guy unrelated to his job." if the staffer was giving inside info, yes... he literally says NO inside info, he barely mentions CNN
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Apr 16 13:38:09 Romney in BLM march... is he about marxism & violence? http://twi...son/status/1269742337934217219
kargen Member	Fri Apr 16 14:23:20 “[Trump’s] hand was shaking or whatever, I think. We brought in so many medical people to tell a story that was all speculation -- that he was neurologically damaged, and he was losing it. He's unfit to -- you know, whatever. We were creating a story there that we didn't know anything about. That's what -- I think that’s propaganda.”
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Apr 16 14:34:26 i don't recall any hand shaking stories, perhaps he means the ramp or trump's two-handed drinking (which was NOT because his hand was tired from waving, a lie from team Trump, waving was after) so yeah, they did speculation, and they noted it was speculation
Rugian Member	Fri Apr 16 14:40:45 I don't think I've ever had a woman look at me the way that TW looks at CNN. Wow. This is thread is like a window into what true love looks like.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Apr 16 14:50:20 actually i actively dislike Project Veritas, as they provably deceptively edited video in the past (abortion video) and as they continue to do for some CNN criticism: their covering of cop shootings does lead to the impression of it being a worse problem than it is (same rationale for why that guy warned of covering every black assault on asians)... but i don't think they are doing it to push the narrative, they do it for ratings just like covering the riots extensively... continuous coverage all night w/ multiple embeds & Martin Savidge riding inside a molotov cocktail... that was as good ratings, in no way did that make people more sympathetic to BLM so yes, they do stuff for ratings as that's how they make money & did they have a lot of negative Trump coverage? you fucking bet... everyone should have, he was INSANELY unfit
habebe Member	Fri Apr 16 14:50:47 TW, I meant "mostly peacefully protests" in front of a burning city.
habebe Member	Fri Apr 16 14:54:42 I completely agree there is a disconnect between BLM the group and popular perception. But that happens with many movements.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Apr 16 14:55:47 i know what you meant, and the reporter was noting the large crowd protests were peaceful during the day & turned to smaller group rioting at night which was 100% true
habebe Member	Fri Apr 16 15:06:54 Yes, but by that notion, the same would apply to the Jan. 6th riot. Also when CC says "we" I take that to mean CNN. like if Bolton had said we, he would be referencing the WH staff and or his staff and in relation to Trump.
habebe Member	Fri Apr 16 15:07:06 watching the videos now*
kargen Member	Fri Apr 16 17:11:13 " but i don't think they are doing it to push the narrative, they do it for ratings" pushing the narrative is what increases ratings. And some of the CNN reports I saw were definitely sympathetic to BLM. Remember how they covered BLM being painted in huge yellow letters on the street? It was all about according to them systemic racism and BLM's valiant efforts to bring awareness. That narrative carried over into their reporting on the riots and every other aspect of that story. Beyond BLM they covered the occupation in Washington as almost heroic. You are right that CNN does things for profits. They know discord sells and to that end they frame their stories not on what is true but what will divide.
Habebe Member	Fri Apr 16 18:54:20 So for me, its nothing new. It jist shows what most people know. CNN does do some real news. However their main focus is to put a narrative lens on there to paint democrats in a good light and Republicans in a bad light. Even going as far as singling out conservatives that are a problem for the DNC. Their focus at the moment is to get matt Gaetz. So they will skirt the truth and present the narratice he is an Eppstein-light. While brushing Biden's #me too charges away. Basically they have no more credibility on stories than FOX or Breitbart in regards to *politically motivated stories*.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Apr 16 19:22:11 Gaetz isn’t a particular problem for the DNC, his own party doesn’t even seem to care much about him other than the whack-jobs... he’s in the news as it has been current revelations and salacious CNN may prefer negative stories on Rs but they aren’t propping up any total piece of shit, lord of lies, poisoner of America daily. The Chauvin trial has been the main story recently (was televised). There are no shows dedicated to propping up any Ds. Fox News is way worse.
Habebe Member	Fri Apr 16 19:38:28 Agree to disagree.
Dukhat Member	Fri Apr 16 20:01:39 Wikipedia on Veritas is not kind to them. Constantly caught deceptively editing videos constantly to drive a conservative narrative. Muckrackers aren't suppose to have an agenda to anything but the truth but Veritas history and fudning shows they aren't journalists but yet another group of right-wing hacks.
Habebe Member	Fri Apr 16 20:06:42 The video speaks for itself.
kargen Member	Sat Apr 17 00:20:08 Maybe CNN should pull the ole Charlie Chester wasn't speaking in his "official capacity" like when Jen Psaki claimed Walensky was speaking in her “personal capacity”. Then all is good.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Apr 17 02:02:21 i see one video shows alleged employee Charlie floating that idea that going after Gaetz is because he's a problem for the DNC... so kinda proves all his comments meaningless & just his opinions (which are dumb ones) in no way is Gaetz a particular problem for Dem efforts, if anything he's a positive as he's part of the cancer in the GQP keeping them a trash party Gaetz is bad for the country, but not for the DNC, thus Charlie offering again nothing more than opinions any viewer could give
obaminated Member	Sat Apr 17 17:24:22 Good news is that despite cover from twitter, cnn is hemmoraging ratings.
habebe Member	Sat Apr 17 17:45:24 probably not related to this. CNNs ratings have been going down hill since Trump left the news.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Apr 17 18:19:45 yeah, Fox News made an article about it... 'CNN's ratings way down'... w/ no mention of their own being way down, what a total shit article to write Fox News was down 40% this March compared to last March
habebe Member	Sat Apr 17 18:44:23 All news stations were down. I thought CNNs were down more than the others though.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: