So Wikileaks has turned up a batch of emails showing collusion between CNN and the DNC, specifically in regards to questions to ask Republican presidential primary candidates in interviews. Note that this was during the primaries, not after Trump had won, so using "OMIGODITSTRUMP!" to excuse CNN's obeisance to their political masters doesn't work here.
A couple of thoughts.
- I'm clearly not the audience for CNN. I couldn't care less what the DNC wants asked. I'm all about the Federal debt load on my children and cultural collapse.
- If I was trying to sell my product to the general public, I'd, you know, like, kind of find out what they wanted to hear. CNN has a polling company under contract, why couldn't they have queried, say, 500 Americans at random to come up with questions.
- Why did they need to ask for help with the questions in the first place? Is it really that hard to come up with interesting questions for presidential candidates? Those questions answer themselves, of course with the following thought.
- They weren't interested in questions, they were interested in logic traps. "So, Jeb, you said you are against whaling, but the Inuit still hunt whales. Why are you so full of hate for Native Americans?"
Most noteworthy of all is how this election and Wikileaks have completely obliterated the media's claims of being non-partisan. That will never fly again, no matter who wins.
Sigh.
9 comments:
I guess this is another case of "if you aren't the one paying for the product, then you are the product".
And yet, all of my liberal Facebook friends pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. They don't read about Wikileaks, have no idea that happened, and if information like that starts to penetrate their fog of smug righteousness, they put their hands over their ears, screw up their eyes, and go, "La-la la la la..."
If a tree falls in the forest and the New York Times and the Washington Post weren't there to report it, did it make a sound?
This makes me think again that the problem here is self-limiting. Yes, many people don't pay attention, but if and when they do, then the whole control and fake-objectivity thing is over and there's no going back. You can't keep losing credibility like that and still be able to exert sufficient control over the populace.
^ You can when said populace wants to be controlled. Look, it has been apparent for at least 40 years to anyone willing to see reality right in front of their nose that:
1) the Democratic Party is anti-American;
2) "the media" is the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party;
and still at least half the country votes Democrat and will not even consider an alternative.
" "the media" is the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party"
The thing I wonder about is, why should that be the case? "The media" consists almost entirely of for-profit corporations of one sort or another. Their goal, like that of any corporation, is (or should be) to maximize their profits. So why do they think that supporting the Democratic party is more profitable than supporting the Republican party? Do the Democrats just pay better?
Well, a lot of money is in very blue areas: Manhattan, Silicon Valley, San Francisco, Fairfax County...
Also, it's marketing: Convince more people to buy product and you'll get more money coming in.
Look how long George Stephanapolos had had his overpaying gig. And he's done it by being a hack in the thrall of the Democrats. Why on earth would ANYONE believe for a nanosecond that someone who worked for a Democratic president world be an objective journalist?
Of course, Walter Cronkite still had most of America snowed as far as being "objective" -- and he never worked for a surviving president and here's been dead seven years.
Tim, I would argue that people are not rational so much as rationalizing. I think you take the profit motive analysis much too far. I'm certain there have been many, many media outlets who argued and still do for socialism no matter how many times it fails. The love for the Democrats is personal, cultural, religious, something of that sort.
" I'm certain there have been many, many media outlets who argued and still do for socialism no matter how many times it fails"
Indeed. But that still doesn't answer the question: if it isn't for the money, why should media outlets as a whole be biased towards any particular side? Sure, any *individual* media corporation is likely to be biased one way or another, but why should they be biased as a *group*? Saying that it is because one party controls them isn't really an answer, because it doesn't explain *why* one party is able to get control while the other cannot.
Tim, I think this is why the left's monopoly on the culture and academy is so destructive. Our children are marinated in leftist thought from both the public schools and the arts. It's gotten worse over the last 8 years with actual thought police on college campuses. Who is going to go against the grain?
Post a Comment