SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
A couple of Time Warner shareholders went after CNN CEO Jeff Bewkes Thursday in LA at a Time Warner shareholders meeting [...] David Almasi, the Veep of the National Center for Public Policy Research1, a conservative communications and research foundation, is in LA to question Bewkes. Both Almasi and President David Ridenour are Time Warner shareholders.
[...] “Mr. Bewkes, we have urged you many times to make CNN more objective,” Almasi said in his statement. “You have admitted to us in 2014 the need for more balance. We praised you last year after CNN President Jeffrey Zucker also acknowledged this and acted on the need for more diverse views. But bias is apparently worse than ever. As shareholders, we are concerned about the repetitional risk to our investment in Time Warner as CNN appears to be a key player in the war against the Trump presidency.”
Almasi cited a Media Research Center2 study of CNN programing for 14 hours and 27 minutes of news coverage back on May 12. The report concluded that all but 68 minutes were devoted to Trump with 96 guests out of 123 being negative.
[...] “I’m inquiring about CNN’s bias and our return on investment,” Almasi continued in his statement. “Half of the American public – which includes potential and current CNN viewers – voted for Trump last November and supports his agenda. CNN acts as if it is part of the anti-Trump resistance. Are you willing to lose viewers, possibly forever, because of the bias?”
Almasi even threatened Bewkes, saying that Media Research Center plans to alert advertisers about news programs that “peddle smear, hate and political extremism.”
He asked Bewkes, “Are you concerned about advertisers leaving CNN? Will you continue to ignore our appeals for objectivity at the risk to our investment in Time Warner?”
Source: The Daily Caller
1The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a self-described conservative think tank in the United States. In February 2014, at Apple Inc.'s annual shareholder meeting, NCPPR proposed Apple "disclose the costs of its sustainability programs" was rejected by 97% vote. The NCPPR representative argued that Apple's decision to have all of its power come from greens sources would lower shareholders' profits.
2The Media Research Center (MRC) is a politically conservative content analysis organization based in Reston, Virginia, founded in 1987 by activist L. Brent Bozell III. Its stated mission is to "prove—through sound scientific research—that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:43PM (3 children)
ABSOTUTELY!
Some people, I'm sure, voted for Trump because he was the only real not-Hillary alternative.
Really love to know if Sanders would have taken it over Trump. My bet is he would have won.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday June 20 2017, @07:10PM (2 children)
He absolutely would have. A significant portion of the Trump vote was from people who simply hated Hillary. Remove her from the equation and it all changes.
Think of it this way: How many people voted for Trump because they hated Hillary? Now replace Hillary with Bernie; how many of those Hillary-hating Trump voters are going to hate Bernie enough to vote Trump instead? So he'd get a lot Trump voters switching over to his side. Remember, both Trump and Bernie were anti-establishment votes, votes for change. Hillary was a vote for the status quo and the establishment.
Now on top of that, factor in how many votes the Dems would lose by switching from Hillary to Bernie: how many Hillary voters are going to hate Bernie enough to vote for Trump? I'd say that number hovers pretty close to zero.
Additionally, how many people didn't vote? The turnout was significantly lower in 2016 than in 2008. There was zero enthusiasm for Hillary on the Dem side, but there was a lot for Bernie (and a fair amount for Trump). Replace her with Bernie, and you'll surely get more people turning out to vote blue.
So, add these three together: some Trump voters will cross over to vote for Bernie, zero Hillary voters will cross over to vote for Trump, and some no-shows will vote for Bernie. Bernie would have had an easy win.
This is really all on the DNC and Hillary for screwing this up, and it's ultimately the fault of the DNC (namely Hillary and DWS) for whatever horrible things happen during Trump's administration. The DNC should have been neutral, and Hillary should have bowed out when it was clear that she wasn't well liked. This is yet another example of the DNC fielding a terrible (or at least terribly uninspiring) candidate and then wondering why they lost the election. It happened with Kerry, it happened with Gore, it happened with Dukakis, and it happened with Mondale. The *only* times they've won in recent history is because they found someone with real charisma: Bill Clinton and Obama. Every time they run someone with no charisma, they fail. When will they learn?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @07:38PM (1 child)
*Sigh* All on the DNC and Hillary? Hint: just because you don't like the Democrat candidate does not mean that you must vote for the Republican. Second hint: there were more than two candidates on my ballot; I'm guessing there were more than two on your ballot as well. I eagerly await the day that Trump voters finally own their fuck ups. Unfortunately, I don't see it coming any time soon.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday June 21 2017, @01:06AM
There are ONLY 2 candidates when you absolutely cannot stand one of them and do not want them to win:
Candidate One: someone you absolutely cannot stand one of them and do not want them to win
Candidate Two: the only other candidate that can possibly beat candidate one.
Candidate One could have been Bernie Sanders, but because of theft and corruption it became a candidate that you absolutely cannot stand and do not want to win
ie:
--Option one could have been breathe fresh clean air, but that option was taken away and changed to mustard gas (that will slowly, painfully kill you) instead.
--Option two is smelling baby poo: the horrible baby poo that makes you gag and want to puke.
--Option three is kill a unicorn: if you cannot find one, you die from mustard gas (that will slowly, painfully kill you)
--Option four is kill a Mog named Barf: if you cannot find one, you die from mustard gas (that will slowly, painfully kill you)
Which option would you choose? The sane human chooses Option Two, cause smelling baby poo is mostly preferable to dying..........mostly......
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---