CNN just showed their picks

[voytechs]

Not event pretending to be unbiased CNN just played adds for Santorum and Romney on live TV for free in the course of a discussion. Talk about picking your winners and free advertizing. That was like several hundred thousands of dollars worth of free advertizing on national tv for the 2 candidates they want to win. Both easy pick'ns for Obama.

[RPit]

But its quite obvious that Santorum is expected to perform. They have to utilize their time based on expectations too. But ya adding Paul wouldn't have been so hard but this isn't some conspiracy.

[MsDoodahs]

I'm not prone to be conspiracy minded, but I 100% believe there is a conspiracy in the MSM against Ron Paul.

[PolicyReader]

However it doesn't require a conspiracy to be biased

[Article V]

Not event pretending to be unbiased CNN just played adds for Santorum and Romney on live TV for free in the course of a discussion. Talk about picking your winners and free advertizing. That was like several hundred thousands of dollars worth of free advertizing on national tv for the 2 candidates they want to win. Both easy pick'ns for Obama.They showed those two TV ads, because Santorum and Romney spent nearly $300,000 each on advertising them across Minnesota. Gingrich spent $0 in Minnesota TV advertising, and Ron Paul spent only $70,000. They explicitly said they were airing Romney's and Santorum's ads now because they were trying to give a reflection of the only two television presences in Minnesota.

I swear... it's as if you're not actually listening to what the reporters you're watching are saying.

Beyond that, they're basically only trying to fill up airtime since they can't talk about entrance polls since they didn't do any for these states. They are all operating largely in the dark right now and are just picking various straws to talk about in trying to guess what they cannot predict.

[affa]

But its quite obvious that Santorum is expected to perform. They have to utilize their time based on expectations too. But ya adding Paul wouldn't have been so hard but this isn't some conspiracy.

Why is it 'quite obvious' Santorum is expected to perform? Perhaps because it's all the media has been saying for the past couple days? As for not being a 'conspiracy'... do you not think the producers and newscasters discuss the story beforehand, or do you think they just sort of go on the air and run at the mouth?

[MsDoodahs]

I swear... it's as if you're not actually listening to what the reporters you're watching are saying.



I'm not watching it. I'm watching RED on Showtime ExtremeHD at the moment and following the liveblog Kathy88 so graciously provided the link for.

Doesn't change my view regarding the MSM conspiracy against Ron one bit.

[phill4paul]

However it doesn't require a conspiracy to be biased

QFT

[Article V]

Why is it 'quite obvious' Santorum is expected to perform? Perhaps because it's all the media has been saying for the past couple days? As for not being a 'conspiracy'... do you not think the producers and newscasters discuss the story beforehand, or do you think they just sort of go on the air and run at the mouth?Because the only poll in MN showed Santorum on top with Paul in 3rd and because Newt's & Romney's campaigns have both acknowledged they probably will lose that state.

So if you were the media and needed to guess without any other data to go on... who would you guess?

[Bruno]

Also just showed live caucus where Ron Paul will be speaking live in Maple Grove!

[RPit]

I think the guy who is covering Maple Grove is a Ron Paul supporter! Thats why he had those obviously Ron Paul supporters speak.. And he is "HOPING" himself!!

[affa]

However it doesn't require a conspiracy to be biased

Bias so thick in an industry that is prided on 'journalistic integrity' almost requires that there be some level of conspiracy, however. Either that, or they're just collectively dumb as a brick. How else do you explain when the media decides on 'today's story' and then repeats essentially the same phrases verbatim on every channel?

Here's a silly example (skip to 1:13):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GME5nq_oSR4

Jon Stewart points this out a couple times a month, as well. Plenty of them are Ron Paul related (the one above isn't).

They're either reading from the same playbook... or parroting each other so effectively that they might as well be. Either has the same effect, conspiracy or stupidity. Neither is acceptable.

[tbone717]

I'm not prone to be conspiracy minded, but I 100% believe there is a conspiracy in the MSM against Ron Paul.

I believe there is bias for sure, but if Paul had won 2 or 3 of these contests already they would be covering him as much as they are covering Romney now. The MSM is first and foremost in the business to make money, and they need ratings to do that. They love nothing more than a good story. If the public is voting for Romney then they will cover Romney because people will keep the channel on. If they start talking about Buddy Roemer, people will tune out. It is money first, bias second.

[affa]

Because the only poll in MN showed Santorum on top with Paul in 3rd and because Newt's & Romney's campaigns have both acknowledged they probably will lose that state.

So if you were the media and needed to guess without any other data to go on... who would you guess?

That's the tail wagging the dog, though. Santorum gets pumped in the media, the polls reflect this, and it's self-fulfilling to some degree.

If the media knows that over reporting on one candidate will surge that candidate, they should not do so. Fair and accurate coverage of all candidates.

[affa]

If the public is voting for Romney then they will cover Romney because people will keep the channel on. If they start talking about Buddy Roemer, people will tune out. It is money first, bias second.

Even journalists admit that any Ron Paul segment gets a huge viewership, thus disproving your assertion.

[voytechs]

I swear... it's as if you're not actually listening to what the reporters you're watching are saying.

I listen to what they say but I also watch what they do and I was fumming. In the end both got free airtime on primetime national tv for their ads. If they want to stay unbiased show the other 2 candidates ads as well to be fair.

RP on now

[dannno]

do you not think the producers and newscasters discuss the story beforehand, or do you think they just sort of go on the air and run at the mouth?

I think the people you see are actors who read scripts.

[dannno]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVC28oemocA

[affa]

I think the people you see are actors who read scripts.

that was sort of my point, grin.

[RPit]

Looks like Santorum will wipe the floor with Romney in Missouri. We BETTER WIN Minnesota. Otherwise Santorum will get a IMMENSE SURGE. We need to be part of the winning story tonight.. Lets put it off Minnesotans!!

[PolicyReader]

Bias so thick in an industry that is prided on 'journalistic integrity' almost requires that there be some level of conspiracy, however. Either that, or they're just collectively dumb as a brick. How else do you explain when the media decides on 'today's story' and then repeats essentially the same phrases verbatim on every channel?

Here's a silly example (skip to 1:13):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GME5nq_oSR4

Jon Stewart points this out a couple times a month, as well. Plenty of them are Ron Paul related (the one above isn't).

They're either reading from the same playbook... or parroting each other so effectively that they might as well be. Either has the same effect, conspiracy or stupidity. Neither is acceptable.

Suppose it depends on how one is defining 'conspiracy'.
For my part I don't think there's a 'master list' that the corporate media follow. I just think they are for profit entertainment/ratings driven "reality tv" that pander to what they think will best promote and protect their profit margins. It doesn't require that they are coordinate together (how I'd personally use conspiracy) for them to universally oppose and put down Ron Paul, it only requires that they understand he has actual integrity and would impact some of their cozy little deals with gov and/or their corporate welfare.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't think there's a masterminded agenda so much as near universal corruption and dishonest (they're clearly not fact checking and reporting with honesty and objectivity, but that lack of journalistic ethics isn't exclusively directed at Paul, it's universally directed at anyone/thing which might lower the ratings/profits)

All that being said however, if one were to use the legal def for conspiracy that only requires 3 or more people acting in collusion at which point I'd be hard pressed to find any way to prove that there isn't a conspiracy by the legal definition :P

In the end it may just be a matter of how one chooses to define the words in question, because the dishonesty (or if feeling generous inaccuracy) within the corporate media can hardly be in question to anyone that does what the media is supposed to do, fact check the reports.

[voytechs]

RP was nailing it in his speach live on cnn, when they broke away the coverage to show people rearranging chairs in a gymnasium. You can't make this shit up.

[Article V]

That's the tail wagging the dog, though. Santorum gets pumped in the media, the polls reflect this, and it's self-fulfilling to some degree.

If the media knows that over reporting on one candidate will surge that candidate, they should not do so. Fair and accurate coverage of all candidates.While that might be true in places like Iowa, I saw no such thing in Minnesota. If you can provide examples (since there must be many for it to become a self-fulfilling prophecy) of the media over reporting Santorum before that MN poll came out, I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

But I--who has had the news on 24/7 for the past week--did not see the media report on Santorum much at all in Minnesota, let alone over-report on him--and certainly the reports that did come about on Santorum largely happened after the polling took place and not before.

I think you're lumping their activities in other states with this one; but the behavior has been different this time, largely because the media was distracted by Nevada and the other states.

[Article V]

RP was nailing it in his speach live on cnn, when they broke away the coverage to show people rearranging chairs in a gymnasium. You can't make this shit up.They showed a lot of the speech! How long do you expect them to keep it on him? They have 2 other locations they had to show plus the regular news (national and international) and still managed to be the only channel to air Ron Paul speaking and for more than the 2 minutes they told us they'd show.

Seriously, people, I hate the media as much as you do; but we need to chill.

[voytechs]

They showed a lot of the speech! How long do you expect them to keep it on him? They have 2 other locations they had to show plus the regular news (national and international) and still managed to be the only channel to air Ron Paul speaking and for more than the 2 minutes they told us they'd show.

Seriously, people, I hate the media as much as you do; but we need to chill.

WTF, get off my case dude. I expect them to show the rest of the speech. Its better then watching people rearranging chairs.

[Article V]

WTF, get off my case dude. I expect them to show the rest of the speech. Its better then watching people rearranging chairs.Haha. I agree, but clearly their producer wanted to show the other empty places before they had to cut to commercial. That seems reasonable to me, even if it's less interesting.

I am just saying I don't think it was media bias. I think we're being overly sensitive, because there's so much media bias in other places.

[thoughtomator]

I initially read the thread title as "CNN shows they're pricks" and was like, yeah of course they are