CNN Tells Viewers It's Illegal For Them To Read Wikileaks Document Dumps. CNN Is Wrong

from the you're-not-helping dept

I cut the cord years ago, so the only time I stumble into cable “news” coverage is usually at the gym or airport. And time and time again I’m struck by how the empty prattle is more in line with dystopian satire than anything resembling actual news reporting or intellectual analysis. Even when these channels feature live breaking news stories, you’d be hard pressed to find a reporter willing to call up a source and confirm details of what’s happening, resulting in something that’s more akin to industrialized speculation than the polished news product of multi-billion-dollar media empires.

The latest case in point: CNN’s Chris Cuomo was dissecting the latest Wikileaks document dump when he decided to “inform” viewers that it’s illegal for anybody but a member of the media to download and view the contents of the Podesta leaks:

“…Remember, it?s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It?s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you?re learning from us.”

Yeah, that’s not how the First Amendment works. Legal precedent has repeatedly made it clear that the First Amendment offers the same protection to the press as to the public, even when it comes to possessing or distributing illegally obtained material (just as long as you weren’t directly involved in the theft of the material in question). In its 2001 Bartnicki v. Vopper decision, the Supreme Court rejected even civil liability for distributing illegally obtained cellphone recordings, and refused to differentiate the public from the media in its ruling:

“The . . . question is whether the application of these statutes [that purport to ban distributing illegally obtained material, even when one wasn?t involved in the distribution,] in such circumstances violates the First Amendment. [Footnote: In answering this question, we draw no distinction between the media respondents and Yocum.]”

As the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal’s law blog were quick to highlight, that case cited New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which also treated press outlets and the public equally in the eyes of the law in such situations. The Supreme Court’s Pearson v. Dodd ruling also makes clear that the possession of illegally leaked materials is simply not treated the same way as knowingly possessing physical, stolen property.

This isn’t Cuomo’s first run in with being violently wrong on legal fundamentals despite having graduated from Fordham with a law degree. He also took a bit of a beating last year when he apparently hallucinated a “hate speech” exception buried in the First Amendment. At some point you have to wonder if CNN is actively trying to be this bad at what it does, or if CNN boss Jeff Zucker is a subversive artist of the highest order, working tirelessly to craft a crushing, satirical look at modern American intellectual dysfunction.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: cnn, wikileaks

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “CNN Tells Viewers It's Illegal For Them To Read Wikileaks Document Dumps. CNN Is Wrong”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
119 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Reading is illegal?

CNN is very partisan. Holy F., Does everyone else have to do your reading for you? CNN has been outed as a Hillary shill for at least 6 months now if not more. There were protesters outside of the CNN headquarters on multiple occasions for not covering the news in an unbiased manner and for participating in news blacklouts. CNN is owned by Turner Corp which is a major contributor to the Hillary Campaign.

Anonymous Coward says:

That is awesomely funny...and sad

This is funny that they thought anyone would believe this. It is truly sad that many on the left will. I tried to teach many here how to Google the internet and YouTube for the truth about the Dems a week or so ago and they decided to stay willfully ignorant. So to make it easy for them, I have linked two videos below. There are many more and these just cover a little of the latest dump. So please, educate yourselves on your party and tell me you still support their tactics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFD4nQARR4c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aynfXGaV-EQ

DannyB (profile) says:

Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad

It is truly sad that many on the left will. [believe this]

Lost me right there in the 2nd sentence. There are as many right wing nutjobs that would believe this. Be equally condescending.

I voted today. On vacation on erection day. Got a voted sticker on my shirt. So I would hate to think that something in the debate tonight might make me change my mind. Oh dear.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad

Agree, the stupidity and ignorance is astoundingly vast and abundant on BOTH sides! The Constitution is under assault from all directions, it’s just that one side has a different set of favorites to hate on than the others.

I have found that just about everyone is a Sunday Constitutionalist!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad

I have no thoughts that the Repubs are above reproach, but there have not even been any allegations that they have done any of the things the Dems are proven to have done.

But really, my guy is bad and so is yours is a poor rebuttal. Trump is not my preferred candidate, but he has not done anything like what Hillary and the DNC are doing. They even have Obama out defending her now telling Trump to stop whining about the election being rigged. Yet it has been rigged up to this point and no reason to believe it isn’t still.

Like I said, the DNC is corrupt top to bottom. If a private citizen was caught doing any one of the things they are doing, they would be in jail by now.

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad

Hillary is neither the perfect candidate nor the most honest. But she’s no worse than ANY Republican in the 2012 or 2016 election primaries, and far better than most of them. Trump stands out as being the one person who could make Hillary look like a saint.

Likewise the RNC makes the DNC look good. It’s not just the Republican Party’s own Presidential nominee openly and repeatedly declaring it corrupt. Runner-up Ted Cruz spent the last 7 years campaigning against the “Republican Establishment” before he suddenly became the Republican Establishment’s last hope against Trump.

If Hillary is so bad, then why can’t the Republican Party find a better alternative? If her “crimes” are so bad, then why can’t they find a qualified Republican candidate who isn’t guilty of the same crimes?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 That is awesomely funny...and sad

If Hillary is so bad, then why can’t the Republican Party find a better alternative? If her “crimes” are so bad, then why can’t they find a qualified Republican candidate who isn’t guilty of the same crimes?

Non-Sequitor

Just because YOU are okay with her crimes is not any form of a valid argument against the quality of the Candidate that the republicans put up.

The problem is far more fundamental. Some on the left will never vote for someone on the right even if the person on the right aligns with their ideals more. And someone on the right will never vote for someone on the left even if their ideals aligned with them more.

It’s call polarization. Your extremes are soooo extreme that not even reason can be used to reason with you.

I hate both of these people, and all I hear is well we can’t let that “other jerk” into office cause they are worse. That is willful blindness, a cheap fucking suit excuse to refuse to do your civic duty and tell your party that you sitting this one out for running such a fucking pathetic candidate. We are fucked either way, better to take the opportunity to send a more important message than…

well…. I guess we have no choice now… might as well…

yes, they fucking know it, and they fucking know it very damn well. All they need to do is run a candidate only a little bitter fucking better than the other bastard to get you fucking plebs to vote and be placated little sheeple. Meanwhile, no matter which bitch you get, you still get fucking dry humped till your eyes bug out.

Welcome to America! It’s not yours!

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 That is awesomely funny...and sad

AND YET….

You still haven’t answered the question: If Hillary is so bad, then why can’t the Republican Party find a better alternative? If her “crimes” are so bad, then why can’t they find a qualified Republican candidate who isn’t guilty of the same crimes?

No, it’s not a non-sequitur. It’s central to the issue.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 That is awesomely funny...and sad

Trump, and no I didn’t vote for him in the primary, is head and shoulders above Hillary. She has committed actual crimes, rigged the primary and inciting violence at her opponents rallies. This is just the tip of the iceberg with her. Trump has done none of these things. So congrats Dems, you made Trump look awesome.

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 That is awesomely funny...and sad

So, “because vague partisan accusations” then.

Admittedly there was some wrong-doing regarding her mail server, but nothing that warranted charges after it was fully investigated, and nothing that wasn’t also standard practice for her Republican opponents and the entire previous Republican administration.

Trump has a long, well-documented list of crimes – the outright scam that was Trump University, fraudulent charities, ordering staff no rent to blacks, sexual assaults, etc. etc. etc. And many incidences of “It’s not technically illegal, but goddamn is it sleazy.”

Not to mention that HE’S the one who keeps inciting violence at his own rallies. Heck, now’s he’s openly inciting post-election violence.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 That is awesomely funny...and sad

but nothing that warranted charges after it was fully investigated

Guess you missed the 15 minutes of the FBI Director spelling out her crimes. Then, surprise, surprise, the DOJ who is appointed by the Dems didn’t prosecute. But nice attempt to cover the facts.

And no, he doesn’t incite violence, in case you missed those videos, it was the Dems bussing them in to cause violence.

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 That is awesomely funny...and sad

Guess you missed FBI director Comey explaining why she wasn’t charged, in contrast to David Petraeus who did far, far worse.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/18/donald-trump/fbi-director-james-comey-says-donald-trump-has-it-/

Guess you missed the last two Secretaries of State – both Republican – doing the same thing. AND the entire last Republican White House. And Mitt Romney and several candidates in the 2016 Republican primaries. “But nice attempt to cover the facts.”

Director Comey was Deputy Attorney General for George W. Bush’s administration, leaving to become General Counsel and Senior Vice President of that commie Marxist leftist organization, Lockheed Martin. When he was considered for the supreme court, it was the left that opposed him as a Bush holdover. In his confirmation as FBI director he had unanimous Republican support except for Rand Paul, grandstanding on drone issues. But nice, I mean lame and sleazy, accusation.

Trump is on video directly inciting violence. And his followers are on video responding with it. As opposed to your desperate accusations.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 That is awesomely funny...and sad

Actually, Comey explained the crimes she committed. It was up to the DOJ to press charges. They didn’t because you know, they are all Dems. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good lie.

Hillary wiped her email 1 day after receiving a subpoena telling her not to; did the last several do that?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 That is awesomely funny...and sad

Guess you missed FBI director Comey explaining why she wasn’t charged

I haven’t seen a good reason coming from Comey for it, that’s true. The link you provided sure doesn’t contain one.

Comey, in a July 5 news conference, said there was no evidence of Clinton or her staff intending to violate the law.

Yeah, that server was setup by accident. They never intended for it to happen. Yeah, you bet.

But he also said Clinton should have known that her handling of the emails was inappropriate, and that her behavior was "extremely reckless" because outsiders could hack her server.

Which is criminal when it comes to handling classified material. Why she wasn’t prosecuted for it is still unexplained by Comey.

Guess you missed the last two Secretaries of State – both Republican – doing the same thing.

If so, then they should be prosecuted as well. "But, but, somebody else did it too!" isn’t a valid excuse. We can build more prison cells if we really need to.

that commie Marxist leftist organization, Lockheed Martin.

I think you left out "pinko".

Groaker (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 That is awesomely funny...and sad

First of all, it is the DOJ, not Comey which is responsible for making the decision to charge. Obama left the DOJ attorneys intact from the those left over from the Bush43 selections. This was quite unusual, because every preceding president had replaced DOJ attorneys with his own staffers. Almost all were Republican. The DOJ itself is quite heavily weighted towards Republicans.

Groaker (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 That is awesomely funny...and sad

Placing the “decision” making process in another’s hands is a decision. Undoubtedly politically based with the “decision” agreed to beforehand. And let me point out that the FBI is a part of the DOJ. Just handing off the official process to a subordinate.

The DOJ is corrupt, vile, and supports the breaking of law when it suits it. Up to and including murder. Their main rule is “don’t get caught.”

Lesath says:

Re: Re: Re:10 That is awesomely funny...and sad

Placing the "decision" making process in another’s hands is a decision.

By that reasoning then the decision was actually made by the American voters who elected the representatives who appointed the officials. That means Hillary wasn’t prosecuted because the American public decide she shouldn’t be. In fact, no one in government ever has any responsibility for anything because it all falls back to the voters. Yeah, I see how that works.

Enif says:

Re: Re: Re:6 That is awesomely funny...and sad

Admittedly there was some wrong-doing regarding her mail server, but nothing that warranted charges … blah blah blah …

You may think that she should be above the law, and you’re entitled to your opinion. But, if I had done the same thing I’d be spending a long, long time in prison. That just doesn’t seem right to me.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 That is awesomely funny...and sad

Part of the problem is that the extremists on both sides are running the show, and the ‘well’ of discourse and discussion has been completely poisoned by those on both sides.

If A is for something, then B had better be against it.

If B proposes something, then any good member of the A party had better vote against it.

Compromise is a sign of weakness, if the other tribe is for something your tribe is against it, even if you personally are for it, and if you have the audacity to suggest that the other tribe might have a good idea on something you’ll be torn to shreds by members from your own tribe for being ‘weak’ and ‘betraying the interests of those that voted for you’.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 That is awesomely funny...and sad

(Wrote up the setup and forgot the ‘punchline’…)

As such any sane, ‘moderate’ candidate from either party would be all but tarred and feathered by their own party for not ‘standing up to those twisted evildoers from the other tribe’ and being ‘too weak to adequately serve the interests of those voting for them’.

After all if people wanted to vote for tribe B they’d vote for someone in tribe B, why ‘waste’ a vote on someone that might as well be a member of the other tribe but that’s too dishonest to admit it?

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 That is awesomely funny...and sad

I’ve had people on the left/liberal side batter me because I wouldn’t accept their point of view without question.

Each side appears to have its own dog whistles; it’s as if they’re mirroring each other, divvying up the populace between them and forcing people who won’t sign up to pick a side in case the other guy gets in.

That is profoundly undemocratic.

JBDragon (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 That is awesomely funny...and sad

I had no say in the matter. Trump is no Republican. In fact we haven’t had a real Republican pick in quite a number of years. Lots of RINO’s at best. Really, just a wing of the Democrat party. They’re leftest, just not crazy leftest as most Democrats became.

I don’t want either elected, but since I’m now forced to pick one of them, It’s going to be Trump. He’s at least not a politician and just throws whatever out. Clinton is just a flat out liar and criminal. Being a Clinton and a Democrat, she could get away with murder, oh wait, she pretty much has by lack of action.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad

Dear Sir, the very point of having a political party is to usurp the will of the people.

Just because one does it more or worse “by your definition” does not mean that another sees it the same way. There are truly pro’s and con’s to how each party handles their business, but in all cases they are both fucking evil!

George Washington warned us that this would happen as long as we allow political parties to constantly involve themselves in the political process or to refer to ourselves by Party, Geography, or groups. We should be Americans first, but no, it’s being American last, it is more important to disparage those on the other side even if we destroy the nation in the process. That is where we are right now!

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad

“Trump is not my preferred candidate, but he has not done anything like what Hillary and the DNC are doing.”

You’re right, because he’s come from a completely different world to Hillary, so he’s never been in a position to do what she’s done. Instead he’s done a whole lot of other things that make him a despicable human being and completely unfit for the job. A Clinton presidency will quite likely be more of the same shit, but a Trump presidency will cause far more damage, and unless you happen to be very wealthy and white, you will most likely suffer as a result.

“Yet it has been rigged up to this point and no reason to believe it isn’t still.”

You actually have no reason to believe it is rigged other than Trump’s ranting. A claim this serious should be easy to prove, but nobody has provided any credible evidence. You’re welcome to try.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 That is awesomely funny...and sad

“You actually have no reason to believe it is rigged other than Trump’s ranting.”

Not true. There is quite a lot of evidence of rigging including the admission by the DNC that they were rigging. 1) in their emails 2) in the court.

1. Nevada. Delegates not allowed in the room. Delegates for Bernie Sanders mysteriously no longer registered Democrat. http://observer.com/2016/09/former-democratic-congressional-candidate-says-hillary-stole-nevada/
2. Polling places suppressed.
3. DNC Convention. Bernie delegates not allowed in. Not allowed to leave to go to the bathroom. Not allowed back in. Places taken by seat fillers.
4. Vote tallies changed on live tv and votes taken away from Bernie Sanders and given to Hillary Clinton.
5. Auditors being ignored when the tell the election board that they saw votes being miscounted.
6. Polling staff being told by the DNC not to give the voters in California the correct ballots to independents.
7. People’s party affiliation changed without their knowledge and with signatures not their own.
8. DNC operator told reporter “We’ve been busing people in for 50 years, we’re not going to change now.”
9. Voter rolls purged contrary to state election law. NY for example.

http://www.anonews.co/dnc-rigged-election/

dem large scale voter fraud
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 That is awesomely funny...and sad

I’m still wondering why hot-mic talking still trumps (ugh) the whole point where he raped a thirteen year old (or rather coerced her into having sex and her mother into cooperating). That’s looking like it may not even have been an isolated incident.

Trump is not just a creepy stalker lech, but an outright sexual predator. Who’s committed sexual predator crimes like raping little girls.

As for his fitness for running the president, look up the Last Week Tonight bit on scandals. Mr. Oliver juxtaposes nicely the amount of Clinton scandal in comparison to the amount of Trump scandal, the latter just usually being buried in his moat of outrageousness.

As he puts it, it’s very reasonable to be angry at some of the things Clinton has done, but if so, you have to be outraged at what Trump has done. Then he showers himself with raisins.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 That is awesomely funny...and sad

Ah yes… the old honey better than vinegar trickery.

So if you are going to be caught, why is it better that I die next to a bowl of honey vs a bowl of vinegar? The trap is sprung either way.

People are too preoccupied with how the message is delivered instead of the truth of the message. The sign of maturity is the ability to not take random insults so seriously. People insult me all day long, I have gotten so use to it I certainly do not bother wasting time at taking offense.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad

All responces below based on the sources provided for the first Youtube video here: http://louderwithcrowder.com/top-10-wikileaks/

1) Hilary wants Open Borders.

So does Donald Trump. At least he did in 2013. He said it was critical. And if fact, variations on the statements made by Hilary I think would be good things.

2)The Iran deal was awful and even Democrats know it.

That email was clearly lacking in context, And could actually mean many things, perhaps referencing a private conversation where one of the individuals ‘called’ that response. We don’t actually know what was said here as the “Yup” comment from Podesta does not answer any query from the original email.

3)Bernie Sanders was bribed into supporting Hillary. But he did it for the people! Aaand his lakefront vacation home.

The wording in the email does not suggest an actual exchange of cash (a point the source of this analysis now admits). In fact it discusses a solid standard political tactic. The Republicans sign a pledge to support the nominee, this is no different. The Clinton campaign just suggested they produce goodwill between candidates and not produce ads that undermine the eventual nominee. Politicians working together? What scandal!

4) The DNC created fake, sexist ads under the alias of Trump organizations.

i see no evidence they were posted. And, these posts are clear hyperbole. I don’t see how this is more serious then Republicans creating propeganda sites masquerading as local news, or creating fake websites from democratic candidates, or creating fake democratic fundraising sites to steal Democrats money.

5) Hillary believed Obama committed voter fraud

-Both wrong and misleading. Some people of unknown position and authority in Colorado (sound like they might just be private citizens) thought that Obama was bringing ineligible voters to Caucuses in 2008.

6)Clinton staffers wished the San Bernardino shooter was white.

Misleading. John Podesta made that claim. No email was released that agreed with him. I am unsure what this has to do with “their tactics”.

7)The Clinton campaign is HUGE on media collusion.

Not sure how this email proves media collusion. It was a mass email from someone in the Sanders team about a Sanders Twitterstorm sent to political consultant Donna Brazile, who forwarded it to the Clinton campaign. I see no signs of a media organization colluding with Clinton.

8) Speaking of media collusion, Ezra Klein is big on helping to make that happen.

Ezra Klein was mentioned as someone how would hold a journalist ‘accountable’. From context, that would appear to mean accountable for discussing excerpts from emails devoid of context and claiming a different meaning than what was intended. Kinda like this entire chain of accusations.

9)Hillary knowingly, criminally deleted her emails.

The emails in this case neither reveal anything new, nor prove Clinton knew anything more then she claimed. The staffers claim no conversations with Clinton about the subject, just reservations about the information everyone at that point had.

10)Obama and Hillary communicated via private email, and it was kept hidden.

The only thing in the wikileaks emails that they cite is a short email. It asked if they should withhold emails to from [reasonably assumed] Clinton to Obama. And ponder if Executive Privilege should be declared. Since everyone communicated with Clinton via private email, I don’t know why it would be surprising the President did. there is no evidence that Obama was using an unknown private email, nor was there evidence that his copies of the emails aren’t archived on a government server. In fact we don’t even have a response, so we don’t know that Clinton copies of these emails were even withheld.

Honestly, I’m not even gonna get into the second Video. If you need to blatantly misattribute and sensationalize the information to ‘prove’ misconduct, you are on a witch hunt.

As a note, the democratic party is not my party. I’m Pirate party. i just don’t like partisan mudslinging.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad

Ah, lots of dismissal with no proof. Ima gonna need the citations please. I will help you out though, you can get to Wikileaks at the link below. I will leave it as an exercise for you to actually do some searching for yourself. What we do have is confirmed video and documents of Hillary’s and the DNC committing crimes, corruption and election rigging.

https://wikileaks.org/

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad

Crowder is a professional liar.

Back during the 2009 fight over healthcare, he came north to Canada to videotape a hatchet job on the Canadian system. To start with he went to a PRIVATE clinic – without an appointment – had to wait, and declared it a socialism problem. And he had trouble getting into the strip-mall parking lot, which he also declared to be a Canadian healthcare problem.

It was one sleazy half-truth, 1/8th-truth, misrepresentation and outright lie after another.

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 That is awesomely funny...and sad

Oh, was I “attacking the messenger?” I thought I was just adding context.

Your messenger is a professional liar with a long history of telling politically-motivated lies. No doubt there are people in the Republican Party who will point out the same thing, saying “He’s very good at what he does.” Are they attacking him?

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 That is awesomely funny...and sad

exactly, i read the email. i responded with the assertionn that the evidence, the email, does not back the conclusions. In all cases the videos author is taking statements out of context, or making background assumptions about the context of the emails that we don’t know. you then told me to read the emails, which i already stated i did. you are asking me to find the smoking gun in thousands of emails, when every example of a smoking gun you come up with fails to say what you want it to say!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 That is awesomely funny...and sad

according to Fox News, government sources have confirmed that the email behind the “quid pro quo” arrangement is the one below sent from Jake Sullivan to Hillary on November 18, 2012 at 8:44PM. The email is heavily redacted but seemingly includes intel on the Benghazi attackers who stormed a U.S. compound the previous month on September 11, 2012.

Given the heavy redaction, it’s difficult to say exactly why this particular email was of such great concern to Kennedy. Given that the email was marked “Classified: SECRET”, perhaps he was simply concerned that it proved that Hillary sent classified information over her private network. Or, given the timing of the message being sent just 12 days after the election in 2012, perhaps there is evidence in the email that Hillary and Obama both knew from the beginning that the September 11 attacks in Benghazi were never just a “spontaneous reaction to a youtube video” but a coordinated terrorist attack…if so, Mitt Romney would sure love to have a look at what’s behind those whited out boxes.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad

Ah, glad to see you here too. No glutton here, all the punishment is exposing the lies, corruption and crimes of the left. In the last post you guys played dumb so long it was amusing. The latest release shows you the truth that you cannot ignore. I am sure you will though, but at least you know that I know that you know. 😉

LAquaker says:

Re: Re: Company Mouthpiece

I Quit CNN when their perch during the 1991 aerial bombardment of Bagdad was the only building lit up like Christmas, and the talking heads CMPLAINED. Obviously, we didn’t want to kill our house organ.

Oh Yea, CNN’s talking head blabbed ‘we don’t know how this fire started’ at Waco as the Army tank behind him was punching holes in the ‘compound’ with it’s flaming gun barrel.

Anonymous Coward says:

This isn’t Cuomo’s first run in with being violently wrong on legal fundamentals despite having graduated from Fordham with a law degree.

At some point you have to wonder if CNN is actively trying to be this bad

Yes, they are trying to do this on purpose. Not to be bad, but to protect the Dems. Look at the leaked documents or watch the videos and you will learn that the liberal media is literally in the Dems back pocket. They alerted Hillary to questions in the debates. They get stories ok’d by her campaign manager before running them. The media and the DNC is corrupt top to bottom. Now the truth is out, the libs can no longer deny it. They will though, in their own little effort to stop people from reading.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“Now the truth is out, the libs can no longer deny it. They will though, in their own little effort to stop people from reading.”

Lol. They could deny the sun is bright and that water is wet and a large percentage of their viewers will accept it still. They are spinning everything to try to cast doubt on the facts that have been revealed. They are directly responsible for both current candidates due to their coverage and that was on purpose.

DannyB (profile) says:

A solution

DRM is the solution. Outlaw all printed paper (except for the convenience of special persons). All reading is on digital device screens. All content is DRM protected.

Now you can’t read anything illegal. Just as Newspeak will make thoughtcrime impossible. A glorious new world.

The sender of an email can ensure you can no longer read it.

The emails or texts between a government criminal conspirator and their lobbyist could become unreadable.

It’s all “secure” in their mind.

But then Comey’s head would explode because some nerd forgot to implement a government back door. Why can’t things just magically be secure for the right people, and insecure for the right other people?

Anonymous Coward says:

CNN "Loses" Satellite Feed Just As Congressman Mentions WikiLeaks

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-19/cnn-loses-satellite-feed-just-republican-congressman-mentions-wikileaks

“Two thirds of the public know that Hillary Clinton’s a liar, she can’t be trusted and now the two faces of Hillary are coming out – the fact through Wikileaks she says one thing and [feed interrupted]”

Anonymous Coward says:

Keep the Sheep Stupid

The goal is to keep the people ignorant. If they believe they cannot get that information from anyone else, then “Certainly Not News” will be able to keep selling advertising, landing in front of their brainwashed viewers.

Add to that, people who read may well see information that may make them question their blind faith in their chosen political party (no matter what side it is on).

Anonymous Coward says:

Cable news and the race to the bottom

Cable television “news” has become little more than idiots spewing idiocy. Twitter was sent buzzing yesterday after CNN *talking-head* Brooke Baldwin took it upon herself to smack down Donald Trump’s promise to push for congressional term limits — by “educating” CNN’s viewers that such term limits already exist.

Anonymous Coward says:

Jill Stein 2016 because 2 wrongs don't make a right

– Clinton has a history of military action that leads to regional destabilization. Her track record in Lybia (overthrow, murder), Haiti, (theft, corruption), Honduras (overthrow, wage undermining), Iraq (voting for a war where the evidence was known to be fraudulent), Iran, (repeatedly calling for war, carpet bombing), Russia, (repeatedly calling for actions that would lead to war, insulting the leader of a foreign country multiple times, i.e., calling him the “devil”)
– Clinton an admirer of and taking advice from known war criminal Henry Kissinger.
– Clinton colludes with Super-packs (illegal).

– Clinton supports the TPP which is basically a corporate overthrow of the US government. Because corporations can sue the government willy nilly for supposed losses of profit. And they are protected from being sued for producing deadly or harmful products.

– Clinton supports and promotes fracking which destroys ground water with toxic chemicals. Aquifers are a major source of water for drinking and agriculture. Destroying them is criminal. Not to mention the air pollution (global warming methane 25% more powerful than c02) and the earthquakes.

– There are many emails detailing how the Clinton campaign colluded with the press having for example the Clinton campaign read and change articles before being published. And debate questions submitted prior to the debate.
– Debate moderator working for the Clinton campaign.
– The Clinton campaign admitted in court to having sabotaged Bernie Sanders’ campaign.
– Hillary Clinton deleted emails while under investigation and so destroyed evidence.
– The order not to prosecute Hillary Clinton “came from higher up.” So from the Executive Branch.
– Bill Clinton met privately with the Attorney General while Hillary Clinton was under investigation.
– Clinton campaign staffer murdered days after damaging information released by Wikileaks on the DNC’s activities.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Jill Stein 2016 because 2 wrongs don't make a right

Jill Stein is not an anti-vaxer. That is just a smear propagated by the Hillary Campaign.

So many people believing the lies put out by the Hillary Campaign. So few doing the small amount of research necessary to know that those claims by the HRC media are false.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Jill Stein 2016 because 2 wrongs don't make a right

Anti-vaxer is a Hillary lie. Just like her campaign did to Sanders, try to make the other candidate seem silly. Hillary Clinton is all about distract, deny, dissimulate. Her supporters always say Jill is anti-vax in response to evidence that Hillary Clinton is attempting to start more, more dangerous wars. As if the two are even remotely equivalent. WWIII vs FDA oversight. Jill Stein is the better choice. Right now people who think for themselves are voting 3rd party. Voting according to polls is like listening to someone telling you to watch the shiny ball. Look, look over there, don’t pay attention to wars, the graft, the giant swirling money toilet that is Washington, DC. Polls that are highly controlled, unrepresentative of the population, with small sample sizes are another way the establishment controls who people vote for. You have to make your own choice and do your own research.

Anonymous Coward says:

No news is good news

You cannot trust any “news” from the corporate media. They are donors to the establishment and Hillary Clinton is the establishment. All of their reporting is overtly biased in favor of the democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign. They don’t even bother to hide it. Even Fox flipped for Hillary the day that Roger Ailes left.

I predict the news media will suffer major losses in viewers and readers because of the blatant false reporting, bias and attempts to mislead the public this election cycle. Trust is lost.

Koby (user link) says:

QUOTE:

“At some point you have to wonder if CNN is actively trying to be this bad at what it does, or if CNN boss Jeff Zucker is a subversive artist of the highest order, working tirelessly to craft a crushing, satirical look at modern American intellectual dysfunction.”

Note quite, CNN is just a leftist fraud masquerading as a news organization. It believes that it is functioning quite well.

Digitari says:

The difference

the difference between corporate control and political control is quite simple.
The Corporations are run by the “head” of the company.
Politicians make policy, but have “underlings” carry out everything then get back to the politician.

In Corporations, the “boss” is responsible for the decisions made.

In Politics. the Office holder is keep away from that “responsibility.” (plausible deniability)

FR McGee says:

CNN's Chris Cuomo

I hate to sound all “conspiratorial” and such, but this seems to be part of a larger effort on the part of government to alter the first amendment. In light of Obama’s recent podium call to ‘require truth in public communication’ for which the government, apparently, will be the decider of of what truth is, and the recent bill passing that, while not directly stating, allows the government to disseminate misinformation to the American citizenry (made it legal instead of us simply enduring it).

The “news” agencies now being the propaganda outlet of the government – we have lawyers as newscasters who are lying to the public when talking about what is, and isn’t, legal (in this instance everyone reading these emails).

Groaker (profile) says:

What makes you think that prevarication is limited to the benefit of the agencies of the official despots? Many news organs have opinions and reputed facts that go off their editorial pages into direct and indirect attacks on governmental policies and those who dream them up.

I do agree that Obama’s call for “truth” in public communication is an obvious attempt to censor the news. Obama’s “truth” is certainly not my TRUTH. My TRUTH is rarely congruent with that of any politician.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...