CNN employee on hidden camera
15 responses | 0 likes
Started by GunterK - April 13, 2021, 9:26 p.m.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9467611/CNN-technical-director-makes-embarrassing-admission-getting-catfished-Tinder.html

admits that their whole goal was to boost Biden and get Trump out of office. Thinks, Biden might not have won, had it not been for CNN

Now their focus for hyping news is Covid. Next... climate change

Comments
By metmike - April 13, 2021, 10:10 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks Gunter, 

Maybe others don't realize it(I was on tv for 11 years)  but a technical director has no influence on stories and  does things like call for the different camera shots and whether to zoom in and out and and when to que up and play stories/reports/video and go to commercials.

He says that "without saying it, the people at CNN were trying to get Trump out of office"

What the heck, anybody that doesn't know that must be brain dead. In other news...........water is wet and farmers grow crops (-:

He is convinced that CNN was successful in defeating Trump. Yeah, trump is no longer in office.

I would bet that almost everybody at CNN thinks that. As does everybody at FOX and almost everybody that every watched CNN, including metmike. 

4 years ago, I am 100% convinced that FOX news caused Hillary Clinton to lose. 100% certain. I'll bet everybody at FOX and CNN knows this too. 

Why Veritas considers this a scandal is puzzling to me. 


The saddest part about it  is that everybody knows that CNN is not reporting the news, they are interpreting it with their political spin. That's why most people watch it..............because they want CNN to tell them the news the way they like to hear it.


That's why you and Tim and mcfarm don't watch CNN. FOX is the major station that tells you the news that you like to hear.  


By metmike - April 13, 2021, 10:18 p.m.
Like Reply

On their next objective being climate change..........too funny. That one has been going on for decades and that war was already won.

Their side already won it. 

You don't think so?

Look who's in office and who has control of both houses. Look at his energy policies and the Green New Deal coming up.................errrr, I mean the BIden deal.

Carbon/fuel  taxes are coming.......with absolute certainty. Major penalties for entities that emit CO2  are right around the corner......with 100% certainty. 

Look who signed back up with the fake climate crisis accord and is leading the world  to impose the agenda, which will do ZERO to affect the weather/climate.

It's happening already. They won the war, they have the control..............now they impose the political agenda. 

CNN can bolster the propaganda by showing more bs science and censoring authentic science............ but thats how they won the war in the first place. 

Where has this guy been to not even know that?

By GunterK - April 13, 2021, 11:25 p.m.
Like Reply

Sure, we have been talking about this for a long time. It's nothing new!! However, if you talk to the typical CNN audience, they do not know that. They believe everything CNN says.

any comments to the contrary (on social media or youtube) have always been silenced.

I find it interesting that this old subject is getting a little bit exposure on dailymail.co.

  Dailymail, a British media outlet, is watched by many people here in the US

By metmike - April 13, 2021, 11:59 p.m.
Like Reply

Since you brought up the source Gunter:

Daily Mail


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

Daily Mail - Questionable - Right Bias - Conservative - Tory - Fake News - Not Credible

Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias


QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

  • Overall, we rate Daily Mail Right Biased and Questionable due to numerous failed fact checks and poor information sourcing.
By metmike - April 14, 2021, 12:11 a.m.
Like Reply

https://my.lwv.org/sites/default/files/leagues/wysiwyg/%5Bcurrent-user%3Aog-user-node%3A1%3Atitle%5D/mediabiaschart_com2018.pdf


I posted this to get a good laugh.

NPR, CNN, NYT, Wash Post in the neutral zone(-:

I consider myself very objective and nuetral. I also listen/read those sources.

The only way they could get a neutral rating like that, is if the source of the rating is extremely left and their views are shifted strongly in that direction. 

They got FOX news right and Daily Mail is closer to neutral than the source on the previous page.



By TimNew - April 14, 2021, 2:47 a.m.
Like Reply

That's why you and Tim and mcfarm don't watch CNN. FOX is the major station that tells you the news that you like to hear.  

Don't recall ever saying that I watch fox news.  I have Fox Business on in the background during the say as I work, largely because they keep up to the minute prices on equities.    I try to watch Meet the Press on Sunday, mostly for the entertainment value.  Chuck Todd surely has Tim Russert spining in his grave as this has become one of the most biased news shows I have ever seen.  I watch local news, mostly for the weather,   but don't recall the last time I watched Fox News.


By mcfarm - April 14, 2021, 7:14 a.m.
Like Reply

I do watch fox but not their news shows. I watch their opinion shows. With Chris Wallace as their go to news guy just how are they "hyper conservative"....and Bret Bair would be hard to beat right down the middle

By metmike - April 14, 2021, 10:05 a.m.
Like Reply

Thanks!

By GunterK - April 14, 2021, 10:32 a.m.
Like Reply

mediabiasfactcheck rates dailymail.co.uk as a far-right leaning site… how absurd!!!!

Just take the time and scroll through the dailymail headlines…

What do you see? news…. nothing but news…

Not falsely created news, as we sometimes get from CNN… not biased news, as we usually get from the MSM or from inforwars.com. 

Some real news is controversial, by its nature. For example, earlier this week they reported that BLM founder Cullors bought an expensive home in an affluent “white” neighborhood. This report was factual, but it could be construed as biased against BLM, considering that she follows a communist ideology. Today, they give Cullors a platform to defend her actions.

On occasion, dailymail editor Pierce Morgan expresses his opinion on political subjects, but you can hardly call him a far-right leaning person. Even though he and Trump were close, a long time ago, he quite often has criticized Trump for his bullying, his refusing to accept the election outcome

In conclusion: In this absurd world we live in, many of the so-called “fact checkers” are actually left or right leaning themselves..

I would like to use. a term, sometimes used by mediabiasfactcheck... 'tin foil hat" category.. that's what mediabiasfactcheck is.

By WxFollower - April 14, 2021, 11:39 a.m.
Like Reply

 Even I have said a number of times here that CNN coverage has consistently been anti-Trump. They used to be much closer to the center. Then again, Trump’s campaign speeches and Tweets full of lies and his being such a jackass has made it hard to not give him negative coverage as I’ve also said. I’m saying that a lot of this negative coverage is the Donald’s own fault!

 However, in 2015-6, CNN granted Trump numerous interviews and way more than any other station as I recall, which helped him get elected. That though was quite the unintended consequence! They were doing that because they didn’t take him seriously as a viable candidate and he was generating good ratings.

By WxFollower - April 14, 2021, 11:56 a.m.
Like Reply

Gunter said:

“In conclusion: In this absurd world we live in, many of the so-called “fact checkers” are actually left or right leaning themselves..

I would like to use. a term, sometimes used by mediabiasfactcheck... 'tin foil hat" category.. that's what mediabiasfactcheck is.”

——————————

 Mediabiasfactcheck as well as Allsides both have a nice mix of right and left biased ratings, which tells me they’re both credible as opposed to being biased, themselves. I literally counted up the hundreds of ratings one day a couple of years ago for both. Had they had more sources rated as right biased than left biased, I might have questioned their objectivity. But they didn’t.  That’s why I’ve often quoted them and used them to defend my feeling that InfoWars and Zero Hedge are far right and often conspiracy based garbage sources of fake news. And it isn’t getting any better with them.

  I don’t think Daily Mail is as bad as those two but that doesn’t make them a reliable source by any means. I mean when you’re compared to the worst of the worst, anyone could easily look “good” even if they’re not. That doesn’t mean Daily Mail doesn’t on occasion have an accurate report like they recently did of Pierce Morgan as it pretty much just quoted him.

Edit: That article by Morgan was actually an editorial by the editor. I didn't realize he was the editor there. Anyway, I do agree that Morgan is no far rightwinger and is a good reason to not rate Daily Mail as badly right biased as the other two.

By GunterK - April 14, 2021, 1:57 p.m.
Like Reply

Hi wxfollower, Thank you for your edited comment 

Yes, as far as I have observed. Pierce Morgan is their only person who writes editorials… and he is a very fair commentator. He has praised Trump for doing good, and has come down hard on Trump, for being bad (such as the “stolen election’ narrative)

He is fierce protector of the Royal Family, but has not spared Prince Andrew for his connection with Jeffrey Epstein

The dailymail.co.uk is full of interesting news, such as today’s worsening tension between Russia/Ukraine/USA, the Chauvin Trial, the recent Minneapolis shooting, immigration incidents, various racially motivated incidents, etc, etc…. all reported without bias.

Even Pelosi and AOC are quoted in today’s edition.

Dailymail also reports dirt about political figures, be it Hunter Biden on the Left, or Gaetz on the Right.

That’s why I found it absurd for mediabiasfactcheck to give Dailymail a “far-right” rating.

By metmike - April 14, 2021, 3:21 p.m.
Like Reply

I agree that the fact checkers and ratings for sources are often being done by people that are themselves biased.

That's why I provided the source that had those clearly liberal sources rated as neutral and called it laughable.

I have learned many things as moderator here for almost 3 years. One of them is a much better understanding for why people think the way that they do. 

In fact, it's like a real world education dealing with it every day here. Getting tons of opinions, then searching for all the facts I can find ............from every side, before making comments.

Of course I am wrong sometimes......heck, I am wrong for a living as a meteorologist that predicts weather. But the key to being a good weather forecaster is to assume that you might be wrong and look for evidence that you might be wrong(not just why you are right) so that when you are wrong, you can change to being right ASAP.  

This is called the scientific method.

Human nature is such that people look for why they are right, instead of why they might be wrong.

Fact checkers are the same way. If they think they are right about most realms in the world(which we all do), then sources that match up with what they think is right get put down as being neutral and reliable. 

They obviously take some time to verify most facts better than most people but there is still enough subjective interpretation to cause a bias. 

By wglassfo - April 14, 2021, 7:18 p.m.
Like Reply

I am not sure if this thread is for biased news or just biased opinion

I was reading in Zero Hedge the reason some body did not think inflation would happen on a long term basis. Short term inflation followed by a levelling off to normal, what ever normal might be

Any how, I found I did not agree with most of the article

I would think my disagreement would likely be biased as I did not agree

My conclusion after reading this thread is that we can be bE BIASED IN MANY THINGS

wx THINKS zERO hEDGE IS FAR RIGHT I think WX might be a bit biased but not completely biased re: Zero Hedge. In other words I think wx is only partially correct but perhaps I am biased

i DISAGREE with wx ALTHOUGH i ADMIT SOME OF ZERO hEDGE IS FAR RIGHT BUT WHEN ZERO HEDGE REPORTS ON TENSIONS WITH RUSSIA OR CHINA OR REPORTS ABOUT RUSSIA MODERINAZATION OF THEIR aRTIC MILITARY BASES, THERE MUST BE SOME FACTUAL REPORTING, i WOULD THINK

sORRY FOR THE cAPS mY BAD. mY LAP TOP GETS THE SETTINGS WRONG DUE TO MY TYPING ERRORS

Fixed it

I am beginning to think for the majority of people who do not research their opinion that bias is largely in the eye of the beholder

Heck I have read text books in school that I thought was biased but I knew what the teacher wanted to see on my exam so I had to choke on my biased opinion. I argued my point in the class room to little or no avail. In my opinion the school teacher was wrong..

Who the heck knows what the author of literature really wanted to tell us, or what some person was thinking when it was not clearly spelled out in black and white words. [Oh my beating heart, be still till morning arrives] Exam question --Please explain if that is love or??? I argued any number of possibilities existed but the teacher had one and only one conclusion

Her answer was:  read the entire book which I did and still had my opinion

Another time the text book I was supposed to read showed a picture of a babies head and argued the size of a babies head did not change from baby size to adult. A series of drawings showed this thought was true. I looked at every baby I could find and decided the text book was bonkers.

Bias???

By metmike - April 14, 2021, 9:34 p.m.
Like Reply

Wow, Wayne you made numerous profound points in there.

You sound like a wise philosopher or sociologist. 


I agree with it too.

There is a ton of things in books that are taught that are just theories or opinions that are presented as rock solid facts.

Even in science.

Sometimes, people taught unproven theories growing up, become the teachers as adults and pass it on as fact because its knowledge in their brains based on assumptions. 

Kids today are taught that climate change is all bad and CO2 is pollution.

I was talking to a group of around 60 5th graders, 3 years ago and was telling them about how the increase in CO2 was greening up the planet because of the key role that it plays as fertilizer in the law of photosynthesis.

One of the teachers, their science teacher said "Wow, I never knew that!"

If she didn't know that as their science teacher,  how many of her pupils would never know that?

When my grand daughter was in 2nd grade(she in 8th grade now) she came over here and was telling my wife some stuff about CO2 being pollution and killing the planet and my wife, immediately repeated that to me and very seriously said "Mike, what are you going to do about that?"

I guess she must have meant, was I going to let our grandaughter think these things that were not true, knowing that I was the scientist in the family. 

I just shrugged my shoulders and laughed. "What do you want me to do, tell her that the science teacher is full of doo doo?  or go to the school and tell  the teacher what to teach?

It is what it is.