Posted on 09/20/2016 7:54:38 AM PDT by mandaladon
What’s going on at CNN in terms of their “hard news” editing process these days? The latest questionable achievement in journalism coming out of Atlanta caught my attention by way of Scott Adams’ Twitter feed yesterday, highlighting an instance where The Most Trusted Name in News ran a chyron which rather pointedly edited comments made by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. While discussing the issue of profiling and once again using Israel as an example, The Donald failed to use a word which would have made the comment far more incendiary to the Left, so CNN took the liberty of inserting it for him.
You’ll notice the difference between the caption and the actual text of the remarks comes down to one word. The Hill highlights precisely how they molded the narrative.
CNN added the word “racial” to Donald Trump’s Monday comments on terrorism and immigration, and is running headlines reporting that the GOP nominee is advocating “racial profiling”.
But a review of the transcript of Trump’s comments to Fox News that CNN quoted, however, shows that Trump never put the word “racial” in front of “profiling.”
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
I hope that if Trump is elected that he has the House and Senate push through a bill which would finally force the cable companies to charge only for what the consumer wants, instead of forcing them to subsidize crap like CNN or MSNBC.
CNN's competition is not Fox News or Bloomberg et al., it's Dr. Oz and Oprah and The View and the like.
Anything CNN touts as "objective news reporting" cannot be taken at face value.
Funny thing though, the legal standard of "actual malice" is completely detached from any consideration of intent, and particularly, does not require intent to harm. "Actual malice" under the law of defamation has nothing to do with malice!
The law school lesson is that the law has its own dictionary, and one must approach the law as though no term is defined until a court defines it, and that definition (term of art) may well be detached from the public's dictionary. It's how judges and lawyers set themselves apart from the societies they rule.
And to make things even more opaque, in another context, the term "actual malice" will involve probing intent. But not in defamation.
In defamation, "actual malice" is "knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
Bingo. If Her Heinous gets in, they'll move on the Internet. There have already been numerous trial balloons.
Time to hit these Democrat Campaign organizations masquerading as "News" sources with a Federal Nuke Hammer.
Advocacy on the part of organizations which claim to be "news" organizations should not be tolerated in this nation. There needs to be a board of governors appointed to insure that Half of all hires for these "news" organizations are comprised of Ultra-Conservative Republicans.
This business of hiring 100% Liberals to run a "news" organization constitutes a deliberate and systemic denial of freedom of speech for the Conservative half of the nation.
It's time we got mean with these people.
And The Converted will be preached to here in Freeperland. But in what way will CNN be held accountable except by FOX who again will preach to The Converted? Sue the Bar Stewards.
Exactly what i've been saying. Until massive fines, regulation, and/or Prison terms are handed down, the liberal media will not deal with the problem seriously.
We are far past the point of shooting across their bow. We need to be shooting to sink them.
“There exists a need for real consequences for doing this sort of thing.”
==
“Trump should refuse to do any debate that involves CNN unless they publicly apologize at the opening of the debate.”
Regrettably, those are the only consequences that can be directed at the media - one’s that hurt their wallets (or man-purses, as the case may be).
We can take some comfort secure in the knowledge that anyone who believes anything CNN says was never going to vote for Donald Trump.
NBC has been doing that for decades.
bkmk
CNN actively lies and distorts the news - maybe they’ll get an emmy in the NAZI PROPAGANDA NEWS category.
If the facts are as presented, then by the definition you set forth the elements of defamation are met.
Here’s what it will come to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEGFaOeUm2A
The corporate news media will never reform itself as long as their corporate owners have an incentive to push one candidate (usually the Democrat) over the other. Our founders didn`t specifically protect the press so they could deliberately lie and misrepresent the facts to the citizenry.
We need to seriosly start a discussion about prohibiting corporate ownership of hard news outlets. Hard news outlets should be required to be stand alone entities, not owned by some other entity that could influence its agenda. We have anti-trust laws. In a similar vein, it is entirely appropriate to enact this type of regulation for an institution which is one of the bedrocks for any well einformed democracy. I`m not talking about censorship, but rather ownership reform to try to limit the use of `news` to promote a self-serving agenda.
DITTO !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.