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 Phoenix666 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @04:03PM (32 children)
It seems to have had its ups and downs, rather than a steady state of suck. Many laud the era of Walter Cronkite. Many have fond memories of the NPR of old. Others trusted the MacNeil/Lehrer Report. Prior to those, there was such a thing as yellow journalism.
CNN and the rest of the media, the rest of the Establishment, really, are not going to reverse course because they do expect to win this. It would be quite a Pyrrhic victory, though, because if they succeed in reversing the will of the voters they will lose the country.
Shredding the Presidency the way they are is shredding one of the last institutions holding the country together. Nobody trusts the NSA and will never follow their orders, so when its former commander attacks the Whitehouse he and they are tearing down the one institution that has been shielding them. When the media and Congress push the narrative that Russia controls the Executive Branch, then aren't they also raising the specter that Russia controls Congress and the media too? Maybe the whole thing is a Putin psyop and they're all in on it.
So in de-legitimizing the President, they are also de-legitimizing the entire rest of DC and Wall Street and the entire national power structure.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @04:25PM
Well with any luck that Pyrrhic victory will lead us forward to a non-violent revolution. However, a new gov born from chaos is rarely a solid one. The good people are undermined by the opportunists because almost by definition the good people don't plan for such scenarios.
Decent person: "Let's work together and solve these problems!"
Evil shitbag: "Sounds great! How can I help?? psssst: did you know that decent person is actually a convicted rapist but they expunged his records? Also, his plans sorta work, but you should support me when I tear down his ideas and put forth popular bullshit just to get myself into power. Woops, wasn't supposed to say that out loud!"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by captain normal on Tuesday June 20 2017, @04:30PM (16 children)
"...reversing the will of the voters..."
'... Clinton won 65.8 million votes (48.25%) to almost 63 million (46.15%) for Trump...' Pew Research. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/20/why-electoral-college-landslides-are-easier-to-win-than-popular-vote-ones/ [pewresearch.org]
Maybe you just mean the will of the Electoral College?
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @04:37PM
So cut those numbers in HALF. Trump doesn't even have all the 23% who voted for him; he's lost support from some people who voted for him... possibly losing more than any president. but we won't see him bragging about that one... mostly because it's true (he'd have to exaggerate it too.)
These investors are trump supporters or partners or friends of trump. I'd wonder about their competence when they are supposed to be smart investors but do not realize that they are fundamentally wrong with their argument. On top of that, networks don't appeal to everybody-- they mostly aim for target demographics and the Fox News demo are all near the edge of death... which is not a key demographic (except for voting... Fox is propaganda, they could run at a loss and keep going. CNN is for profit... they want 18-35.)
(Score: 5, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @04:55PM (11 children)
The Electoral College is the system that America uses, and it's the system under which Trump won, and which Americans understand is the way to be elected President. If Americans decide that system needs to change, great, but you can't throw out the results of the election conducted under that system because you don't like its outcome without paying a very much greater price than that of suffering a winner you don't like.
It is also very important for everyone who's so upset about Trump right now to understand that he is an expression of the inchoate rage echoing around the United States these days, not the cause of it. Setting him up as the be-all, end-all of dysfunction in America that will be magically resolved upon getting rid of him completely misses the larger dynamic and will backfire spectacularly. If anyone was chastened last week by the Bernie supporter opening fire on Congressional Republicans, then they are really in for a sight should they get their wish and hunt Trump from office.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @06:13PM (1 child)
Nice, discarding a relevant data point (that has no direct consequence to an election result, but sure as hell points to the existence (or complete lack) of a mandate), putting up a strawman to stand in for the zero people I've heard claiming that Trump shouldn't be president because he lost the popular vote, a condescending explanation of "how trump got elected", *and* a backhanded threat of violence towards liberals.
Thank you for a valuable contribution to the discussion.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 21 2017, @01:24PM
Don't get cute. Citing the "relevant" data point of "Trump lost the popular vote" is precisely done to convey the subtext that 'he really lost,' when he didn't under the actual system that America uses. That's why he's sitting in the Oval Office now, not Hillary. It's the same game the Tea Party guys were playing with Obama's birth certificate, "See! He's not really an American so he can't really be the President!!!"
And my backhanded threat of violence was not toward liberals (it wasn't backhanded or a threat, but a prediction). It was meant to point out that if all the mean talk about Trump in the media could inspire the Bernie supporter to open fire on Republicans, and the mean talk about liberals could have inspired the guy to shoot Gabby Giffords before him, then what does everyone suppose will happen if Trump is actually chased from office because the Establishment plumb doesn't like him?
Thank you for your valuable contribution to the discussion, AC.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @07:07PM (1 child)
True, but I think it is also important to point out that even Mr Trump is subject to the laws of the land. If he broke any of those laws then he is just as much subject to sanction as anyone else. In particular, you and all the other Trumpettes can't just summarily wave off investigations because it is your boy in the White House that is under scrutiny.
What you are saying, in so many words, is that The People threw a collective temper tantrum. Sorry, but this does not lend any confidence in the results of the election.
You just don't get it, do you? If Trump ends up getting "hunted" from office, it will be because most of his supporters, as fickle and filled with "inchoate rage" as they are, have abandoned him. At that point, Republicans in Congress will feel free to cut him loose. Frankly, I won't be sorry to see him go. I just want it done legally by the book.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 21 2017, @01:42PM
OK, Team Blue. Now you want to stand on the law? Where were you when Obama was applauding the NSA's police state surveillance system? How about when Eric Clapper brazenly lied to Congress about its existence and faced no consequences? Either you uphold the law at all times, even when it's Team Blue in the hotseat, or you don't. But if you don't, then, you don't get to suddenly get religion and demand all of those on Team Red do, too.
FWIW, I'm not on Team Red or on Team Blue, but on Team Red, White, & Blue.
Yes, I am saying that. No, you should not have confidence in the results of the election because there was none to be had no matter how it played out. A criminal, or a molotov cocktail. What a choice. But better a molotov cocktail than yet another criminal cut from the same cloth as all the others. At least with a molotov cocktail something unexpected might happen, and there's a chance that unexpected something might be good. With the criminal it was a guaranteed we were all gonna lose, and lose big.
You're the one who's not getting it. Trump's support has stayed pretty constant. Through the primaries, hammered in the media and the Republican establishment non-stop, now in office and hammered by the media and all of the establishment non-stop, they have remained. They're not going to abandon him on the say-so of the media or establishment. If they perceive that he's being railroaded by the media and Establishment, they will explode.
The Republicans and Democrats in Congress are on the same side and have the votes to impeach Trump easily. They can align whatever "facts" they want to make their case for doing that, but Trump's supporters will not accept any of it. That's what the media and Establishment have to contend with. They ought to know it, too. If they don't, they're stupid.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 20 2017, @07:13PM (3 children)
If Americans decide that system needs to change, great, but you can't throw out the results of the election conducted under that system because you don't like its outcome without paying a very much greater price than that of suffering a winner you don't like.
Absolutely correct. The crazy part is it's a lot easier to fix than most people think.
All we need is states worth 270 electoral votes to sign onto the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. [wikipedia.org] They all agree to use their votes for the popular vote winner and since they control the majority it's done.
This is much easier that resolving the issue through a partisan congress. And, you don't need to convince every state, either, just 270 total votes worth.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @07:31PM
Yes, but the Republicans didn't just wipe out the Democrats on the federal level, but also the statehouses. So a scheme to change a system that helps them stay in office is probably going to go nowhere.
All of that presupposes, of course, that there are real differences between team blue and team red.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @07:40PM (1 child)
It would be absolutely hilarious if the Popular Vote Compact were passed and then a conservative won by winning the popular vote and not the electoral college vote. Conservative voters in liberal states and liberal voters in conservative states tend not to have high turnout, so it could happen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @09:07PM
If a conservative won the actual popular vote than I'd be happy because it is likely they would actually be a good candidate. Meaning they would be 10x better than yet another shady democrat/republican corporate puppet.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @09:52PM (2 children)
This is totally a strawman. Nobody is saying the election results should be thrown out. (Unlike a certain Birther movement, which Trump championed... but I supposed he's never had a problem with being inconsistent. "It's rigged... wait, I won? Perfectly fair.")
People are suggesting that Trump should be Impeached, due to breaking the law (see: President Clinton). This is following the system as established. A person can be loyal to the country without blind obedience to a specific person. (Or is the minority party all traitors because they don't blindly follow the majority party?)
As for vendettas and undermining the President for political point scoring, I think there is a substantial amount of evidence which suggests there should at least be a formal inquiry. I'll also note that far less money and time has been spent investigating Trump in this "largest witch hunt ever" as compared to the Benghazi inquiries done against Clinton... And I think an accusation of "international interference with the election of the President" outweighs a "mishandling of information by the Secretary of State which resulted in endangerment of ambassadors" by pretty much every possible metric.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 21 2017, @01:55PM (1 child)
Is it, though? You see, as a progressive I understand this dog whistle meant for progressives to understand. Conservatives have their dog whistles, usually connected to something racist, and progressives have their dog whistles too and this is one. When challenged, they can blink innocently and claim, "Oh but that's not what I said at all!"
What progressives think they want in pursuing Trump's impeachment, revenge, a do-over in the court of public opinion, is not what they'll get at all should they succeed. The best case scenario is they get President Pence, whom they're probably going to like far less than President Trump because he is an organized kind of evil with the backing of the Establishment whereas Trump is chaotic and ineffective on a policy level. The worst case scenario is Trump's base explodes in fury. Either one of those is a catastrophe.
It's much better for them to rope-a-dope Trump through the end of his first term, because he's such a sucker for the catnip of controversy, all the while blocking all of his policy initiatives with the help of the Republican establishment behind the scenes. Then they run somebody who is not an abject criminal like one of the Clintons and win the Whitehouse.
Of course on the larger level that strategy doesn't stay the course of self-destruction America 1.0 is on because it does not deliver the bold reform Americans must have.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21 2017, @04:50PM
Or they want, you know, the truth to come out and justice to be served. Even if the truth is, "Russia really wasn't involved, and here is the innocent explanation for all this circumstantial evidence." Even if justice means President Pence and several years of a religious administration. This is a call to learn the truth, not political gamesmanship. I repeat, you don't see widespread calls for a "do-over," or "Make Hillary President, it's her turn!" That's why I called your previous statement a strawman, and I call your reply a strawman as well.
Don't intentionally misrepresent these calls for investigation and for potential impeachment based on the findings of these investigations. It's easy to say that this is "blue-camp whining and trying to rig the system" (gee, where have I heard such baseless accusations of system rigging? #winning). They aren't... nor are they saying that Russia had literally changed votes so don't play that false-flag card either.
You keep dancing around and implying that, "Russia had no involvement with the US elections... or they did but the US population doesn't need to know more about it." Is that what you are trying to say? If so, then say it. If not, then what are you trying to say?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:19PM
You can only legitimately count the votes taken in states that run elections the same way as EVERY OTHER MODERN COUNTRY does, with a proper ID requirement. Mexico requires ID and won't tolerate illegal aliens -- those Mexicans sure are racist, hmmm?
Take away just California, which we know is handing out bogus ID and automatically registering people, and Trump is ahead.
Not that the outcome would be different under a popular vote of course, because the candidates would've campaigned differently.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @10:45PM
Clinton wouldn't have been the candidate without the front loading of conservative states and the refusal to schedule debates early enough or often enough to let people challenge her name recognition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21 2017, @01:44AM
Or maybe the will of the voters outside of California. The EC is there for a reason; so the entire country doesn't turn into Illinois. Chicago just does Chicago and has a majority of the population, now the state is bankrupt.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 20 2017, @05:26PM (7 children)
So in de-legitimizing the President, they are also de-legitimizing the entire rest of DC and Wall Street and the entire national power structure.
The press isn't de-legitimizing Trump. Trump is de-legitimizing Trump.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @07:42PM (6 children)
The press think they're de-legitimizing Trump, and others think Trump is de-legitimizing Trump. The point is they're all de-legitimizing a whole lot more than that. The whole ball of wax, in fact.
It's stupid, it's short-sighted, it's very dangerous, and it's all gonna end in tears and fire.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by J053 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:06PM (4 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @11:26PM
Why are you so eager for President Pence? Are you really so anti-homo and anti-abortion that you can't wait another 7.6 years? Pence will get his turn, assuming Ivanka doesn't go for it.
(and if you don't want Ivanka, you're a sexist anti-semite)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 20 2017, @11:52PM (1 child)
Oh no no no no, we did NOT come out fine. Ford pardoning Nixon was the deathblow to the integrity of the US government. From then on it was open season, all-you-can-eat at the trough. We're finally seeing the ripening of the national karma generated by that piece of rank cowardice and tribalism. Had Ford had the guts to do the right thing, it would have sent a very different message.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21 2017, @01:04AM
Thank you. All I could imagine from "we got out from Nixon fine" was the "This is fine" meme.
We're not dead so everything must have worked out just fine!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 21 2017, @11:16AM
We were a very different country then.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday June 20 2017, @11:05PM
Neither the president, nor the Supreme Court, nor Congress has had much legitimacy for a very long time. I for one am not opposed to news organizations saying that the emperor has no clothes when the emperor in fact has no clothes.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:07PM (5 children)
And you say it like it's a bad thing? After you elected that orange clown to represent you?
Let me show what the entire world outside US thinks about the "legitimacy" of POTUS: BUTT OFF TRUMP [youtube.com].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 20 2017, @11:26PM (1 child)
Mmmm... troll modding.... someone "who can't handle the truth" (grin).
No, seriously guys, except our own politicians - who must play their role in international relations - the majority of non-USian population who can afford to give a fuck about Trump**, actually do exactly this: give a fuck about your president. Sometimes they can even afford to let their position and the reasons for it known - see the link; up to you if you care or not how others, from outside your skin, see you.
---
** affording to care who POTUS is = not in positions in which the next days' survival takes precedence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21 2017, @01:09AM
"Cheddar faced scrotum"
hehe
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 21 2017, @11:13AM (2 children)
Oh, no, I voted for a molotov cocktail and a molotov cocktail he is. He's doing exactly what I expected. He might be doing exactly what other voters expected, too, but I'm not them and can't speak for them. At any rate, the Establishment has totally disenfranchised the American people in terms of policy outcomes (the origin of the phrasing, "99% vs. the 1%"), so Trump is the American people burning the house down.
But it's very dangerous for the Establishment to be de-legitimizing the President the way they are. It tears down the whole fiction they've been using to bamboozle the citizenry into thinking they live in a democracy where their voice matters. All the estates and cars and trust funds they have amassed will evaporate into nothing the moment the rabble stop buying into the idea that they should continue buying into the way things are.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday June 21 2017, @05:47PM (1 child)
Word of caution: I'm quite afraid that the 1%-ers are just fine, in spite of the smoke coming from the smouldering garbage** attemptedly lit by the American people. Perhaps they are even "grateful" to you for providing the smoke, they have to pay now only for the mirrors.
Some immediately evident 1-percenters that are doing much better so far:
1. the Military Industrial Complex - checked - increased bombing campaigns and drone presence, yuuge arms deals with Saudi, increased support for Israel, etc (Raytheon stock surge [democracynow.org]. mmm?)
2. Koch brothers and the fossil fuels clan - checked (that pipe and "clean coal" dust in your eyes. EPA gutted)
3. Tax cuts? Do you think the 1%-ers will share more of their wealth with 99%-ers only because they are taxed less? His businesses will be the first to benefit.
Google for "benefiting from trump" - you will not find any reference to the 99%-ers.
For the 1%-ers Trump is, at worse a nuisance, at best something to benefit from. If you do want to "burn the house down", then I'm afraid nothing short of "forks and pitches" will suffice - the 1%-ers are too heavy to easily move from their position (and this for quite a long time [newrepublic.com]). But maybe you'll find a less painful way to clean your house than burning it down?
---
** the only garbage you manage to lit is Hillary, I'll grant you that. However, I don't think you set it afire well enough to burn it completely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 21 2017, @10:18PM
The Tea Party guys tried, and the Occupy Wall Street guys tried, but neither got anybody in DC to budge. Hillary impacted the DNC and media both and they still chose one of her acolytes for the new Chairman of the party. Trump succeeded despite the entirety of the RNC going all out to stop him, and they still haven't changed their behavior or gotten the message. At this point burning will be the least painful thing coming to them.
Washington DC delenda est.