PDA

View Full Version : Did any of you just heard what Wolf Blitzer said on the show, and wrote in his blog?!




The Technical
02-25-2008, 04:31 PM
He's asking his viewers what type of coverage should CNN give to Ralph Nader, that of a "marginal candidate", or that of a "mainstream frontrunner". They're basically openly admitting their sistematic cataloging of candidates, so that they can give a specific coverage to each of the two "types". This is sickening; although I've always been aware of the bias against Ron Paul, it really upsets me to see them openly admit such bias towards "non-status quo" candidates. Right before he went ahead with those comments, they were talking about the spoiler attribute of Ralph Nader, and how he's also to blame for the war in Iraq, as he cost Al Gore the presidency!!! The theory that they don't want a Republican like Ron Paul going up against a Democrat seems REALLY REALLY likely now, that's why they're propping up war-mongers and religious fanatics as the "frontrunners". Check out Wolf's blog so you see CNN show its true colors:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/25/blitzer-how-much-time-should-nader-get/

Bruno
02-25-2008, 05:35 PM
My reply to Wolf on their comments section.

By your very question you openly admit your bias and purposeful unfair treatment of other candidates.
Thank you for spelling it out for all those who didn't already pick up on it from your pathetic excuse for campaign "coverage".

The Technical
02-25-2008, 05:39 PM
I don't know if mine got accepted, but I'm "Fabian R." I really gave them a piece of my mind. Truly sickening what they're doing.

sophocles07
02-25-2008, 11:51 PM
CNN and FOX may as well have scripts which go ahead and fill out a clear narrative like Will and Grace or 24 for us, as they don't allow anything to really play out democratically anyway.

They already have this to some extent, in terms of "what to cover"/how to cover/etc. (FOX memos for example), but they ought to just go ahead and lock it down completely. This half-assed narrative-application leaves it open to most of the population as to whether these guys actually are biased.

sophocles07
02-25-2008, 11:55 PM
By the way, look at some of these responses from people:


Very little time if any, should be spent on Nadar, it's pretty late in the game, he's not a real contender, this is a game to him to see how much havoc he can cause. He is not giving any real regard to the American people, this is all about him.



as very little time as possible. all the air time should be given to the candidates who been in the process for than a year, it should be given to those who have raised money, made campaign stops and dedicated all their time to the election process. Nadar is a protest candidate but i wonder what he is protesting? all the candidates in this election are organized and strong , we dont need somebody who will distract attention from serious issues. what america needs right now is a good president, one who has a real plan not someone who is running for reasons that still remain fuzzy in my opinion. give nadar as little time as possible, and give the other more dedicated candidates as much time as they need to give the general public their opionion.



February 25th, 2008 4:16 pm ET

Nader is a joke and should not continuously destroy our country like he did in 2000. He know he is not going to win, so why take away votes that are not helping the country but hurting us. Go back to you home and stay out of the political ring "please"



I do not feel he has any chance of winning. You can give him 24 hour air time and he would still not have a chance of winning.



Honestly, I think that Nader's campaign is a joke. He cannot and will not win. His campaign is a useless attempt to get attention at best, a theif of possible votes at worst. Nader should not be taken seriously. It is as if a normal person were to put his name on a balot just to see how many times he could be on it.


ETC.

These people are complete psychos. They fail to see that Obama, etc. would have NO SUPPORT

if

not

in

the

news

every

second

of

the

fucking

day.

JAYSUS!

Luft97
02-25-2008, 11:56 PM
He's asking his viewers what type of coverage should CNN give to Ralph Nader, that of a "marginal candidate", or that of a "mainstream frontrunner". They're basically openly admitting their sistematic cataloging of candidates, so that they can give a specific coverage to each of the two "types". This is sickening; although I've always been aware of the bias against Ron Paul, it really upsets me to see them openly admit such bias towards "non-status quo" candidates. Right before he went ahead with those comments, they were talking about the spoiler attribute of Ralph Nader, and how he's also to blame for the war in Iraq, as he cost Al Gore the presidency!!! The theory that they don't want a Republican like Ron Paul going up against a Democrat seems REALLY REALLY likely now, that's why they're propping up war-mongers and religious fanatics as the "frontrunners". Check out Wolf's blog so you see CNN show its true colors:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/25/blitzer-how-much-time-should-nader-get/

I just happened to have CNN on when I was eating my late lunch and caught him saying that. We all knew it, I guess he is just being open about media censorship now.

Johncjackson
02-26-2008, 07:23 AM
So you are saying things are getting BETTER, basically?

Of course they have a tiered coverage system. How many times did you see Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, David Cobb, Michael Peroutka, Howard Phillips, or others on CNN or an "mainstream" ( I remember when CNN and FNC were the ones claiming not to be mainstream and complaining about the MSN) coverage?

Was everyone born in the last year?

ToryNotion
02-26-2008, 07:41 AM
A few weeks ago NPR had a segment on Talk of the Nation about coverage of this election cycle. One of the speakers said that there is a 'winnowing process' that occurs but that the media had done it too quickly. I'm not sure if he meant there is just a journalistic winnowing of the field or that there is a combination of an electoral and journalistic winnowing of the field. It is unfortunate that this winnowing process can effect the outcome of the race as the candidates who don't appear to have a chance to win get so much less coverage and then it becomes almost a self-fulfilling prophesy in the end. The point that we need to press if that the media presents too restricted a range of opinion and fails in its responsibility to the public when it excludes certain candidates and their view points.

jjank11
02-26-2008, 07:54 AM
Those people are complete idiots, they have no sense in mind of the ideas of equal rights, freedom and free speech. I just want them to get up there and run for president and then lets see what they say. Its simply assanine for Blitzer to even ask such a question.
I think Nader could force some legal action for censorship. That is exactly what it is. It is so blatant. The news corporations have very little to zero journalism, it is all just sensationalized news.

CNN = Censorship News Network
FNC = Faux News Channel

Bruno
02-26-2008, 07:56 AM
My reply to Wolf on their comments section.

By your very question you openly admit your bias and purposeful unfair treatment of other candidates.
Thank you for spelling it out for all those who didn't already pick up on it from your pathetic excuse for campaign "coverage".

My comment never got out of moderation. Go figure.

pacelli
02-26-2008, 10:45 AM
What a ridiculously sad question, and looking at the comments I have given up all hope that this country can be saved. People apparently love the media when they censor candidates and do not provide equal time. If I gave a crap enough to make a comment on his blog (which will not make a single bit of difference if I did), I'd request that CNN pull time from McLame, Hillaroid, and Osama in order to provide an equal percentage to Paul, Gravel, Hucklebee, Keyes, and Nader.

Nirvikalpa
02-26-2008, 07:02 PM
This is really, really sad to see fellow Americans completely brainwashed by the media.

Crowish
02-28-2008, 08:13 PM
I had the same reaction to reading that comments stream.

A. Havnes
02-29-2008, 09:32 AM
I think it's sad that so many comments are filtered.

ronpaulchronicles
03-01-2008, 03:36 PM
So Wolf has fianlly admitted something we already know. Sadly enough, Nader will get more press coverage than Paul. My one ray of hope is that it looks like Americans are getting tired of the MSM nonesense and turning to the Web for info. We may be just as biased in the blogosphere, but at least we're upfront about it.

Side note: Can people quit blaming Nader for Gore's loss? Al Gore lost because he was a crap canidiate with all the personality of a block of wood. Hell, even the Clintons didn't want to stump for him.

ItsTime
03-01-2008, 04:05 PM
youtube?

Liberté
03-01-2008, 04:10 PM
He's asking his viewers what type of coverage should CNN give to Ralph Nader, that of a "marginal candidate", or that of a "mainstream frontrunner". They're basically openly admitting their sistematic cataloging of candidates, so that they can give a specific coverage to each of the two "types". This is sickening; although I've always been aware of the bias against Ron Paul, it really upsets me to see them openly admit such bias towards "non-status quo" candidates. Right before he went ahead with those comments, they were talking about the spoiler attribute of Ralph Nader, and how he's also to blame for the war in Iraq, as he cost Al Gore the presidency!!! The theory that they don't want a Republican like Ron Paul going up against a Democrat seems REALLY REALLY likely now, that's why they're propping up war-mongers and religious fanatics as the "frontrunners". Check out Wolf's blog so you see CNN show its true colors:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/25/blitzer-how-much-time-should-nader-get/

There are 100's if not 1000's of Presidential candidates, the MSM could not cover them all, nor should they. Some things are just not news, and Ralph Nader running for President really isn't news worthy, he runs all the time, as a Dem Spoiler. Good for him, but why should the MSM give him more coverage then his campaign warrants?

Gadsden Flag
03-01-2008, 05:54 PM
I disagree with Ralph Nader on too many things to vote for him, but I like him way, way better than Obama or Hillary. He seems like a very well read and knowledgable person. I think he is an eloquent speaker without being cliche (like Obama).

Bruno
03-01-2008, 06:18 PM
They just had the same conversation half an hour ago on Fox.

One of the guests said, "Ron Paul has much more support nationwide and he is ignored, treated like a gnat in the debates, is that fair?"

DAFTEK
03-01-2008, 06:29 PM
Wolf has been pushing Obama like a golden child and although he gave Ron Paul a few remarks here and there its just so he dosnet look so obvious of CNN's lovefest with Oboma, then they have the nerve to be the only news station to claim "Is the media giving Oboma a free ride?"

Bro.Butch
03-06-2008, 02:03 AM
Why do any of you support them financially by watching them and reading their lies? They are all just high paid lackeys reading from monitors. I thought there were no mushrooms left after tsunami tuesday.

Take forty-five minutes and change every minute of the rest of your life.

You must ask yourself, if Ron doesn't know the truth would Ed be a featured speaker ? I don't think he would have been allowed within ten miles. You MUST realize the main stream media is the enemy of what Ron Paul and most of US want for this country. There is one political movement running this country using two political parties...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6zhIiGCvg
Ed Griffin @ Ron Paul Rally in Mountain View, CA



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPU8w7Bxc0A&mode=related&search=
The Secret Government (1/3)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQZ56hkKOlk&NR=1
The Secret Government (2/3)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrGNNZnz8EI&feature=related
The Secret Government (3/3)



Its time to wake up and understand WHY RP is smeared and/or ignored and not the opposition !!!!!! Pay close attention @ :52 to 1:01 of this next one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM
Please America, WAKE UP !!???!!


A TRUTH not a theory=
Over 90 % of all talking heads on network and cable news either are members of or work for publications or organizations controlled or owned by these people...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN4bqvuchNs&feature=related
Mike Huckabee Is A Traitor!!! Wake Up You Stupid Buffoons!!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktIECyzf4YM&feature=related
Ron Paul: Who Owns You (Narrated By George Carlin) ADULTS ONLY




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV_AML16tC8&feature=related
Ron Paul answers question if he is a member of the CFR





Partial listing of C.F.R. members, (there are over 4000 members)
Business, Military, Government, Education & Media members belong to the same secretive organization that is reported to be seeking the creation of a one world goverment with the ending of the American way of life as we know it...Quite frankly I didn't list the major business, educationally & military member due to time and space, you are encouraged to find out who really runs the U.S. and the major media...See anyone familiar ??? Comments after names aren't mine.

And the propaganda machine...

***Toobin, Jeffrey R. - CNN legal analyst for CNN Worldwide
Gergen, David R. - professor at Harvard; former Clinton adviser; this is the man who said "It's none of your damn business" when asked about the Bohemian Grove rituals

Williams, Brian D. - Anchor-NBC Propagandist
Woodruff, Judy C. - former CNN Propagandist
Zahn, Paula A. - CNN Propagandist; former CBS and FOX Propagandist
Zakaria, Fareed - Newsweek propagandist (international edition)
Zelnick, C. Robert - Chairman of Dept. of Journalism at Boston University; former ABC News propagandist
Zuckerman, Mortimer B. - Propagandist and editor-in-chief of U.S. News and World Report (Fox news analyst)
Weisberg, Jacob M. - journalist and editor of Slate magazine; a Rhodes Scholar
Warner, Margaret G. - PBS Propagandist
Walters, Barbara - ABC News Propagandist
Vradenburg, George III - President of The Vradenburg Foundation; former General Counsel of CBS; former executive vice president at FOX; former AOL Time Warner executive
Utley, Garrick - correspondent and propagandist for CNN; former NBC propagandist
† Uzeta, Jamie Ernesto - Director of Strategic Partnerships and Public Affairs for MTV (Music television)
Tucker, Cynthia A. - Propagandist for Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Topping, Seymour - former Managing Editor and Propagandist for the New York Times
Sherr, Lynn B. - ABC Propagandist; a 20/20 correspondent

Couric, Katherine A. "Katie" - CBS News Propagandist
Brokaw, Tom - former NBC Propagandist; a Director of CFR
Snow, Robert Anthony "Tony" - White House Press Secretary; former Fox News Propagandist
Johnson, Wyatt Thomas - former President of Cable News Network (CNN
Kondracke, Morton - Fox News Propagandist; editor of Roll Call
Krauthammer, Charles - Propagandist for Time and Washington Post
Rather, Dan - former CBS News Propagandist
† Ratnesar, Romesh M. - staff writer at Time magazine
Krisher, Bernard - former Time Asia correspondent
Kristof, Nicholas D. - columnist for the New York Times; a Rhodes Scholar
McManus, Jason D. - former editor-in-chief of Time, Inc
Michaels, Marguerite - Midwest bureau chief and propagandist for Time magazine
Milestone, Judith B. - former senior vice president at CNN
Mitchell, Andrea - NBC Propagandist; Alan Greenspan's wife
Mosettig, Michael David - former producer of PBS MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour, NBC Nightly News and NBC Today Show
Muravchik, Joshua - resident scholar of American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
Murdoch, Rupert - CEO of News Corporation; Fuhrer of Fox News
Murdock, Deroy - contributing editor to National Review Online and a Scripps-Howard columnist
Sanders, Marlene - former ABC and CBS correspondent and producer
Sanger, David E. - propagandist for New York Times; White House Correspondent for New York Times
Nicholas, N.J. Jr. "Nick" - former president of Time, Inc.; former CEO of Time Warner; a director of Xerox
Parsons, Richard D. - Chairman and CEO of Time Warner; former CEO of America Online (AOL
Pearlstine, Norman - former editor-in-chief of Time magazine
Peyronnin, Joseph F. - an Executive Vice President for Telemundo Network; former President of Fox News; former Vice President and producer of CBS News
Pilgrim, Kathryn ("Kitty") - CNN Propagandist
Pool-Eckert, Marquita J. - senior producer of CBS Sunday Morning
Quinn, Jane Bryant - contributing editor of Newsweek
Kaiser, Robert G. - Washington Post
Kalb, Bernard - retired propagandist; former Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs under Reagan (1985-1986)
Kalb, Marvin - retired CBS and NBC propagandist; former host of NBC"s Meet the Press; professor at Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
Karnow, Stanley - former chief correspondent for Time and Life
Ma, Christopher - Vice President of Washington Post Company
Mabry, Marcus - a senior editor at Newsweek
Smith, Richard M. - chairman and editor-in-chief of Newsweek
Smith, Stephen G. - former Editor of U.S. News & World Report
%%Allen, Jodie T. - managing editor of U.S.News & World Report
Bewkes, Jeffrey - president and chief operating officer of Time Warner, Inc.; former CEO of Home Box Office (HBO) and dozens more...


Bill Clinton's
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader - Supreme Court Justice (1993-present)
Breyer, Stephen G. - Supreme Court Justice (1994-present)

Some of politicians that promote their agenda..
McCain, John S. III (R-AZ) - U.S. Senator (1987-present); Vietnam War POW and Red collaborator

Whitman, Christine Todd (R-NJ) - former Governor of New Jersey (1994-2001); former EPA
Gilmore, James S. III - former Governor of Virginia (1998-2002)
Gingrich, Newton L "Newt'(R-Georgia) - former Speaker of the House
Hagel, Chuck (R-Nebraska) - U.S. Senator (1997-present)
Bloomberg, Michael R. (R-NY) - Mayor of New York City (2002-present) (possible Independent Presidential candidate)

Harris, Katherine (R-FL) - House of Representatives (2003-present); rigged the elections in Florida in 2000
Kean, Thomas H. - former President of Drew University; former chairman of 9/11 Commission; former Governor of New Jersey (1982-1990
Gates, Robert M. - Secretary of Defense; former CIA Director (1991-1993); former President of Texas A&M University

Boren, David L. (D-Okla.) - President of University of Oklahoma; former D-Senator (1979-1994); Rhodes Scholar and a member of Skull and Bones
Bork, Ellen E. - Deputy Director of PNAC (Project for the New America Century)
Boschwitz, Rudy (R-Minn.) - former Senator (1978-1991)
Snowe, Olympia J. (R-Maine) - U.S. Senator (1995-present

Perry, William J. - former Secretary of Defense (1994-1997)

Richardson, William B. "Bill" - Governor of New Mexico (2003-present); former Ambassdor to the United Nations and Secretary of Energy under Clinton
Dodd, Christopher J. (D-CT) - U.S. Senator (1981-present)
***Napolitano, Janet A. - Governor of Arizona

Kerry, John F. (D-Mass.) - U.S. Senator (1985-present); member of Skull & Bones; ran for president in 2004
Mondale, Walter F. - former Ambassador to Japan (1993-1997); former Vice-President (1977-1981); former Senator
Torres, Art - Chairman of the California Democratic Party; former California State Senator (1982-1994)
Torres, Gerald - former assistant attorney general under Clinton (1993-1994)
Torricelli, Robert G. (D-NJ) - former Senator (1997-2003)

Ginsburg, Ruth Bader - Supreme Court Justice (1993-present)
Hamilton, Lee H. (D-Indiana) - former member of House of Rep. (1965-1999); former Vice-Chairman of 9/11 Commission

Gephardt, Richard A. "Dick"(D-Missouri) - former House Minority Leader

Clark, Wesley K. (Gen.) - former NATO commander under Clinton; a Rhodes Scholar
Clinton, William Jefferson "Bill" - former President of the U.S. (1993-2001); a Rhodes Scholar
Nonacs, Eric S. - a foreign policy advisor for Slick at the Clinton Foundation

Carter, James Earl "Jimmy" - former President of the U.S. (1977-1981); awarded Nobel Peace Prize in 2002

Thompson, Fred D. (R-TN) - former U.S. Senator (1994-2003); author of the Chinagate "Thompson Report"

etc. from the R's for example

Rocca, Christina B. - current Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs
Rocha, V. Manuel - former Ambassador to Bolivia (2000-2002)
Roche, James G. - former Secretary of the Air Force (2001-2005)
Rockefeller, David - former Chairman of Chase Manhattan; "American Godfather of World Government"
Rockefeller, David Jr. - David Rockefeller"s son
Rockefeller, John D. IV "Jay" (D-WV) - U.S. Senator (1985-present); former Governor of West Virginia (1977-1985); David Rockefeller"s nephew
Rockefeller, Nicholas - partner of Perkins Cole LLP
Rockwell, Hays H.
Rockwell, Keith McElroy
***Rodin, Judith - President of Rockefeller Foundation
Rodman, Peter W. - current Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs
Rodriguez, Rita M.
Rodriguez, Vincent A.
Rodrik, Dani - professor at Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
Roett, Riordan - professor at SAIS at Johns Hopkins University

123tim
03-06-2008, 09:28 AM
Thank you for the information and the links.

JosephTheLibertarian
03-06-2008, 11:17 AM
Ralph Nader is just running for the benefit of the GOP nominee.

Peace&Freedom
03-06-2008, 12:36 PM
Some initial cataloging of the candidates based on the perception of their resource strength (name-recognition, money, respected reputation, popularity, grassroots support, voter base) can be justified. Who thought Gilmore had any chance at all, for example? But the big media showed its controlling colors when 1) it covered some candidates with dubious political strength far more than others with abundant strengths, and 2) it made no adjustments to its perception based on what happenned during the primary race.

On the Demcratic side, a freshman Senator with relatively little national exposure or experience (Obama) got tons more INITIAL coverage than far more articulate, seasoned and senior politicians (Biden, Dodd). On the Republican side, Paul showed a massive grassroots strength from very early on, yet the media treatment of him budged not in the slightest (and coverage the 'online presence' of the candidates would skip over Paul's domination).

Worse, the goal posts for determining who was a 'serious' campaign kept getting moved, specifically to Paul's disadvantage. First it was grassroots support---until the media clearly ignored Paul's national following. Then it was 'well, the frontrunners raise money,' but when Paul revealed he had more cash on hand than McCain, the standard shifted to 'high polling numbers.' Yet once Paul tipped into double digits in the early primaries, and outdid 'frontrunner' Giuliani and others, the MSM blackout began.

Clearly Giuliani slipped out of front tier status as of January, when he dropped to single digit status in actual primary contests, yet the MSM treated him like a frontruner until the day he withdrew. The media's manufacturing of Huckabee's front tier rise and McCain's 'comeback' has been discussed ad infinitum. The entire 'cataloguing' routine is thus not honest, even if you accept that the initial marginalization of some canddates was justifiable. The CFR media simply came up with a scheme that gave them a figleaf to protect its preferred CFR candidates. Only the creation of a CFR-free media establishment (that actually stays independent, by charter) will reverse this rigged system.

Bro.Butch
03-07-2008, 03:23 AM
Thank you, I'm glad to see you understand, FRIEND !!!


Some initial cataloging of the candidates based on the perception of their resource strength (name-recognition, money, respected reputation, popularity, grassroots support, voter base) can be justified. Who thought Gilmore had any chance at all, for example? But the big media showed its controlling colors when 1) it covered some candidates with dubious political strength far more than others with abundant strengths, and 2) it made no adjustments to its perception based on what happenned during the primary race.

On the Demcratic side, a freshman Senator with relatively little national exposure or experience (Obama) got tons more INITIAL coverage than far more articulate, seasoned and senior politicians (Biden, Dodd). On the Republican side, Paul showed a massive grassroots strength from very early on, yet the media treatment of him budged not in the slightest (and coverage the 'online presence' of the candidates would skip over Paul's domination).

Worse, the goal posts for determining who was a 'serious' campaign kept getting moved, specifically to Paul's disadvantage. First it was grassroots support---until the media clearly ignored Paul's national following. Then it was 'well, the frontrunners raise money,' but when Paul revealed he had more cash on hand than McCain, the standard shifted to 'high polling numbers.' Yet once Paul tipped into double digits in the early primaries, and outdid 'frontrunner' Giuliani and others, the MSM blackout began.

Clearly Giuliani slipped out of front tier status as of January, when he dropped to single digit status in actual primary contests, yet the MSM treated him like a frontruner until the day he withdrew. The media's manufacturing of Huckabee's front tier rise and McCain's 'comeback' has been discussed ad infinitum. The entire 'cataloguing' routine is thus not honest, even if you accept that the initial marginalization of some canddates was justifiable. The CFR media simply came up with a scheme that gave them a figleaf to protect its preferred CFR candidates. Only the creation of a CFR-free media establishment (that actually stays independent, by charter) will reverse this rigged system.

RonPaulFever
03-08-2008, 11:45 PM
Great thread!