WikiLeaks’ first email dump in their “Hillary Leaks” series seems to be proving many things that we have long suspected.
First, they proved that the Democratic National Committee’s unfair treatment of Bernie Sanders was no accident. It was the result of a concerted effort to stop the socialist senator from clinching the nomination. Now, evidence that the DNC is giving direct orders to the mainstream press has come to light, as well.
Of course, it doesn’t take a genius to guess which network was doing the bidding of the Democrat party — it was MSNBC.
In an exchange between Debbie Wasserman Schultz and MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, the Democrat National Committee Chair seemed to order Todd to put an end to stories that claimed that her party was — get this — purposefully mistreating Sanders.
How ironic.
After the revelation, Todd was confronted about the exchange on Twitter. See the confrontation on the next page:
I can’t stand him and I can’t watch Meet the Press any longer
And the surprise is where
Well, it has been suspected all along and now we know for sure it was the mainstream media and the DNC. Karma did come DJT got elected.LOL
Duh
His excuse is so lame. There is desperation translating into demanding anger from the DNC’s DWSCHULTZ: CHUCK THIS MUST STOP…
Now, stop and think about it. If you were going to get a journalist to stop, would you not realize that if these people were not beholden to you, that you would get nowhere by demanding; instead, it is news value(public interests) regardless of which party is hurt or helped would determine what MSNBC runs, at least in an honest world, right? And, with the latter, the DNC WOULD HAVE NO LEVERAGE.
During a presidential campaign, there is nothing gained for the press by withholding coverage, or for the party by making the press irritated toward more STAYONG THE COURSE coverage, particularly negative coverage if they find a reason for it. So, why would the Party Chair DEMAND AND AGGRESSIVELY ACT IF THEY WOULD PROBABLY LOSE BY DOING THAT?
No, you push when you know it will work, and you know news value is not the determiner or priority for the pressured press, cooperation, partisanship is the m.o. as long as a big story scoop by the other networks/channels/periodicals(newspapers, magazines)/radio news, internet legit news departments, etc. does not cost the media outlet credibility or in TV’S CASE, VIEWERS/RATINGS.
The latter is why MSNBC was working against the Dems; they were forced! Ratings, credibility go away if scooped too much! But, if the coverage could be dropped with a phony reason(we know it was not a bogus story) given by Schultz, then there could be a halting or a slowing down of the aggressiveness or negativity of coverage.
Of course, that cajoling would mean nothing if no loyalty to party was at stake. See, it was not.
It could NOT BE. Did MSNBC COOL THE DNC NEGATIVE COVERAGE, OR SILENCE IT AFTER THAT? That would be interesting to check out.
FINALLY, WE SAW ALL OF THIS MEDIA/DEMOCRAT COOPERATION in just a few emails, but in larger number than some would suspect. But, remember, there were only a few email hacked sources and servers in play. What would have happened if we saw ALL OF THE MEDIA-PARTY EMAILS? How much more media-politicians and parties collaboration would we have found if WIKILEAKS HAD MORE HACKED SOURCES? We would find more than likely, EVEN MORE UNHOLY ALLIANCES.
The fact we found more than one example in a small sample size, means there id indisputably more alliance work out there.
Yep!
You can put Don Lemon on this list.
Fox is great to watch. They a least down the middle in my opinion. CNN is the worst. Don Lemon, that guy name Jones, Harper and Wolf are all bias.
Fair and Balanced!! Right??
Of course
Did anyone really need proof to know it was already true?!