This is worse than bad-faith journalism. This is a media campaign to artificially influence the news cycle in favor of a particular candidate and it is unethical and disgraceful. CNN tampered in 2016 and it looks like it is happening again.
Candy Crowley already broke that ground.
Does no one remember anything anymore?
What about this statement is untrue?
I started to feel a little sorry for Burny but caught myself. He’s a POS commie and whatever happens to him is good. Even if it’s a creepy move by a creepy network to undermine his campaign to subvert the America that love.
Berniacs are part of the dem base, so they must be appeased or they might stay home or, worse yet, go independent and split the vote.
Just like 2016, Bernie will allow the 'Rat party to BUY HIM OFF. He'll reluctantly end his campaign, forgive and endorse the eventual 'rat candidate, then go home (maybe even ANOTHER NEW HOME) with his campaign debts paid and millions in unused campaign funds in his pocket.
And the useful idiots who supported him, making this con possible, will never make the connection.
It’s bad theater masquerading as bad reality.
Ten bucks says someone from CNN also told her the mike would be hot after the debate if she didn’t like Bernie’s answer
And Walter Cronkite polled as “the most trusted man in America” in his heydays (1960’s-1970’s).
Yet, he was a closet leftist ‘newsman’ that lied about the Vietnam war status in 1969 and, in so doing, condemned thousands upon thousands of our young American military men to death and maiming.
NONE of today’s major media should be trusted. They believe they are kingmakers and social controllers. They believe THEY are the oh so smart, elite rulers over us unwashed masses.
ENEMDIA
Wrong. CNN is the "mistrusted name in news".
This is not new. If there was a shift, it was at the 1968 Democratic Convention Riot. At that riot, the media clearly took the side of the “progressives” against the Democrat establishment, against the Mayor Daleys and Scoop Jackson types.
I the early 60s I was in frequent Alinsky organization meetings where the discussion was how to handle the press. The assumption was that the press were independent and had no agenda other than the truth.
In the 1970s the assumption was that the press had an agenda and the Alinsky strategy had to incorporate that strategy into their seeking of press coverage. Im the 1970s I sat in many Alinsky grooup meetings with Chicago media, and mational media like 60 minutes producers, where the media was often very frank about their agenda.
Only sometimes was the media agenda pro-Alinsky group. Many times they used the threat of media coverage of the Democrat establishment as leverage to get favors out of the Democrat establishment, such as real estate tax breaks for the media conglomerate.
