CNN Panel Gives Their Opinions About Why Opinions on Opinion-Shows Is Bad

In a jaw-dropping display that was one part a lack of self-awareness and another part hypocrisy, Wednesday’s prime-time Anderson Cooper 360 featured a panel of CNN analysts sharing their opinions about opinion shows like Hannity on Fox News. Their opinions varied but were largely against the mixing of opinion and news. And that was their opinion on the news of the day.

The hypocrisy was so thick you could cut it with a knife.

I mean, personally, I have no problem with Fox News. I’m glad Fox News is out there. I’m glad MSNBC is out there. I personally wouldn’t want to do what either of them do,” explained host Anderson Cooper. But his virtue signaling was all talk and no sincerity because his introduction to the segment included a mocking shot from the undersized network:

Hannity’s employer Fox News did what any respectable news organization would do when face the with the knowledge that one of its anchors had gone on the air time after time after time to breathlessly report on someone without disclosing his personal connection to the story. I’m kidding. They don’t care. They didn’t care.

The first opinion about opinions Cooper asked for was from Washington Post national correspondent Philip Bump, who asserted that Sean Hannity was the sole reason Fox News was popular on the right and why Trump was popular. “So this is a network that Republicans are watching a lot. Sean Hannity is dragging all the coverage to the favorable Trump position. And the net result is it certainly contributes to the fact that Donald Trump is seen very favorably by that same base of people,” he opined.

 

 

Bump also claimed that Hannity only “insists [his show] isn’t a journalistic show, it’s an opinion show,” as if it was anything but. Also according to his opinion, Hannity was “the furthest right outpost on Fox News” and as such he “drags the rest of the hosts with him to match the rhetoric that he is using there.

There is a conflict for Fox News. Cause obviously, during the day they have folks like Shepherd Smith, Bret Baier who are doing reporting. And yet the nighttime is much more opinion based,” Cooper said…at the exact same time Hannity was on the air.

Former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Laura Coates decried how Fox News would dare to differentiate between opinion and news and have people argue to sway others’ opinions via such shows:

Yeah, it’s almost too convenient to say, “oh no, no we’re going to use a kind of nuanced semantics argument. I’m an opinion journalist not actually a journalist. I’m not to be regarded and have the credibility as others but please believe every single word that I say.”

Apparently, it’s more appropriate (or “ethical” to use her words) to not identify a show as opinion and to only refer to all the shows as news.

Former Fox News contributor Kristen Powers stuck up for her former outlet and suggested that most people understood the difference between opinion and news. “I don’t think nobody thinks that Rachel Maddow, however talented she is, is just giving people the straight scoop. It is a perspective,” she argued. “So, I think most people recognize that what Sean is doing is gifting an opinion.

The serious problem with CNN isn’t that they don’t get that their shows are opinion shows; it’s their pernicious disingenuousness to continuously claim that all their shows are straight news no matter the obvious. Their shows might not all have one host just giving their sole opinion like Fox News and MSNBC (as some do), but what they do is farm it out to their liberal analysts who dominate the programs. So, whenever you see or hear a CNN employee say they’re news and not opinion, they’re being misleading.

The relevant portions of the transcript are below, click “expand” to read: 

 

Sign Up for MRC Newsletters!

 

CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360
April 18, 2018
9:38:04 PM

ANDERSON COOPER: In the two days that have elapsed since the President’s lawyer Michael Cohen was forced to reveal in court that the mystery client he tried to keep secret was, in fact, Sean Hannity, the consequences have been swift. Hannity’s employer Fox News did what any respectable news organization would do when face the with the knowledge that one of its anchors had gone on the air time after time after time to breathlessly report on someone without disclosing his personal connection to the story.

I’m kidding. They don’t care. They didn’t care. Here is a statement. (…) It’s a dozy of a conflict of interest, one that was kept secret. But it’s not even Hannity’s most glaring conflict of interest. New reporting in The Washington Post shows how intertwined Hannity and the President are.

(…)

PHILIP BUMP: Hannity has been an ally of Trump since early in the campaign. Probably even something before the campaign. He essentially endorsed him during the campaign. And he has been able to use his television program which he insists isn’t a journalistic show, it’s an opinion show. But he’s been able to use it to drive the conversation both nationally and at Fox News. He essentially serves as the furthest right-outpost on Fox News and sort of drags the rest of the hosts with him to match the rhetoric that he is using there. (…) So this is a network that Republicans are watching a lot. Sean Hannity is dragging all the coverage to the favorable Trump position. And the net result is it certainly contributes to the fact that Donald Trump is seen very favorably by that same base of people.

COOPER: There is a conflict for Fox News. Cause obviously, during the day they have folks like Shepherd Smith, Bret Baier who are doing reporting. And yet the nighttime is much more opinion based.

LAURA COATES: Yeah, it’s almost too convenient to say, “oh no, no we’re going to use a kind of nuanced semantics argument. I’m an opinion journalist not actually a journalist. I’m not to be regarded and have the credibility as others but please believe every single word that I say.”

And the conflict is so apparent in my mind, that, of course, I’m like an attorney a journalist doesn’t have the same bar admission ethical standards that you would have but you still have credibility and ethics on the line. To me this is a clear violation of what the American people would like from somebody who represents they are actually giving factual information as opposed to not only just opinion but also one tainted by a personal conflict.

(…)

COOPER: I mean, personally, I have no problem with Fox News. I’m glad Fox News is out there. I’m glad MSNBC is out there. I personally wouldn’t want to do what either of them do.

(…)

KRISTEN POWERS: Yeah, I mean, look where I would say the evening news shows at Fox, like the evening news shows at MSNBC are opinion shows. They’re not — anybody who think they’re turning on the news getting Walter Cronkite, they’re not. And I don’t think nobody thinks that Rachel Maddow, however talented she is, is just giving people the straight scoop. It is a perspective. So, I think most people recognize that what Sean is doing is gifting an opinion. And I don’t think there is anything wrong with him being a supporter of Donald Trump. I do think he should have disclosed this.

(…)

Source Article from https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2018/04/19/cnn-panel-gives-their-opinions-about-why-opinions-opinion

Dept. Of Homeland Security Will Now Track The Actions & Opinions Of Journalists & Media Influencers



Next Story

News has recently come that the US Department of Homeland Security is now looking to build a media monitoring database to track journalists and their ‘sentiment.’ Included in this list will be other media influencers as well.

This announcement garnered objection from journalists and influencers, which of course led them to be labelled as ‘conspiracy theorists’  by DHS. This, not a new tactic by the establishment, attack the legitimate questions and concerns with name calling in order to sway the public and make people questioning things look bad or stupid for doing so.

The DHS is claiming this initiative is nothing more than a standard practice of monitoring what is happening in the news. Then why not just use a news aggregator? Why do you need to track specific people and their sentiment? Here is the tweet from the DHS press secretary Tyler Q. Houlton.

When someone asked Tyler whether or not the DHS has already been collecting data on journalists the DHS responded as any politician lying would:

Remember when former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Congress the NSA does not “wittingly” spy on Americans? Just a few months later whistleblower Edward Snowden showed the entire world that the NSA was doing just that.

Again in this case the DHS attack with emotional triggers. Is this the honesty and maturity to which we want our governing institutions to respond? This is partly why I suggest people should not vote. Our politicians and institutions are not truthful and they insult the intelligence of the general public when they ask difficult questions. Heck, most politicians never even answer questions head on, they just dance around them. Obama may have been best at that.

Russian Angle Again?

Some believe the hard push of Russian propaganda around election interference, which has long been debunked, is just what is needed to justify the creation of such database.

But tracking or even manipulating journalists is not new to intelligence agencies in the US. For those that think the media reports actual facts, I call attention to a declassified CIA document that illustrates journalists have been manipulated for years to report what government or the deep state would like them to report.

“PAO now has relationships with reporters from EVERY major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation. This has helped us turn “intelligence failure” stories into “intelligence success” stories. In many instances we have persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests or jeopardized sources and methods.”

In many cases, when stories challenge the mainstream narrative they are changed or manipulated to reflect different facts and sentiments. We have seen this time and time again with media that has been brought forth by alternative outlets and touted as conspiracy, only to find out years later they were factual. Yet all along mainstream media pushed a false narrative at the guidance of the deep state and intelligence communities.

Why Track Journalists and Influencers?

It begins with ‘harmless’ tracking and ends with a full scale shut down of people, websites, platforms that eventually don’t match or that threaten a narrative attempting to be maintained.

What many people don’t realize is the power and influence of people outside the mainstream these days is huge. The general public does not trust mainstream news even half as much as they used to. This is a problem for the deep state and their narrative, so being able to control others with influence is important. After all it’s why they created the fake news narrative to confuse the public.

Here at Collective Evolution we have seen first hand what censorship looks like. At times our posts on Facebook are completely unsharable, are removed, disappear or reach is cut to almost nil. We have had users complain hundreds of times about how they cannot find or see our content any longer and even when they attempt to spread it on the social network, they receive failure notifications stating that content can’t be shared.

At CE our message is politically neutral and emotional neutral. We do not express in anger or try to rile anyone up with violence. The same cannot be said about the mainstream media and yet we are censored. Why? Something that is helpful to the world, to people, to living in our hearts and understanding our world is censored.

Simply think about the world we live in for a moment.


The Shamanic Way of Healing

The Sacred Science follows eight people from around the world, with varying physical and psychological illnesses, as they embark on a one-month healing journey into the heart of the Amazon jungle.

This incredible true story details how ancient shamanic healing methods can work to shift our bodies and minds. here.

Read the incredible true story here.

The Shamanic Way of Healing

8 people with illnesses go into the jungle to heal naturally… read the incredible true story here.

×

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Collective-evolution/~3/SrHIUEgtq-g/

Tony Blair is back offering opinions no one asked for and deflecting from his warmongering that led to the refugee crisis

Tony Blair  Vickie Flores / Global Look Press

    

Britain’s never-truly-gone former Prime Minister Tony Blair has had a busy new year period, filling the void by offering opinions no one wants. Brexit, immigration, ignoring democracy – he’s got a lot to say.

With most politicians up to god knows what in the holiday period (we’ll probably find out in the tabloids soon enough) Blair has seen an opportunity to hold court.

Blair is still so active in political life, one wonders whether sometimes he accidentally walks back into 10 Downing Street, kicks off his oxfords, loosens his tie and pours a Baileys and blackcurrant before even noticing the actual elected incumbent staring back at him across the room, angrily tapping her kitten heeled slippers.

Today’s headlines have Blair warning Germans in newspaper Die Welt about the dangers populism poses for the continued existence of the EU. (Do the Germans of all people need that lesson from him?)

Blair himself first came to power by dragging his left-wing party to the right, and tapping into populist policies. He was Prime Minister for a decade, which is all the warning about populism anyone should need.

On the other hand, Blair as Prime Minister was absolutely inspirational in his willingness to ignore popular movements in order to show his iron-leadership. When one million people turned up on the streets of London begging him not to go to war in Iraq, the popularity of that movement didn’t sway him one iota.

The only time he took his metaphorical fingers out of his metaphorical ears was to push the metaphorical button to start the bombing of Iraq (not metaphorical).

Blair has also been holding forth on immigration saying tensions occur from non-EU migration “when people aren’t sure the people coming are sharing our values” – particularly from majority-Muslim countries.

Non-EU migration has in no small part also been caused by people fleeing the hard end of foreign policy pushed by Blair and his contemporaries. The one value people from majority-Muslim countries, and all the other ones, do share is a general dislike of being blown up in wars.

Peter Mandelson, arguably Blair’s closest advisor back in the day, also recently admitted that the Labour government of the early 2000s sent out what he called “search parties” to find as many immigrants as they could to bring to Britain.

So whichever kind of immigration is annoying you this week, there’s a good chance Blair was behind it at some point.

Blair’s think-tank this week published a 32-page document outlining his views on Britain leaving the EU. As yet there’s no sign of them publishing a 32-page document outlining his views on apologizing.

That’s probably because Blair is politically greased up and focused on sliding himself into the center of the Brexit debate at the moment.

He told Die Welt: “Let’s be clear: the anxieties of the British people that led to Brexit are not confined to Britain.”

Luckily the anxiety that Blair could return to elected office is confined solely to Britain.

His views towards the majority of people that voted for Brexit share some parallels with his views towards the million plus people who didn’t want to go to war in Iraq. Namely, that they should be ignored.

What he wants ultimately is a second referendum, one that gets the ‘right’ answer this time. “Once we know the alternative, we should be entitled to think again, either through Parliament or an election or through a fresh referendum.”

Well he doesn’t know the alternative, but he seems to have made his mind up.

I can draft the question Blair would like right now: ‘Should Britain stay in the EU: Yes or Yes?’

There’s an inherent point that Blair, and all the Blairs continually fail to grasp. Part of the reason people voted for Brexit is in no small part because of establishment political figures like him.

If he wasn’t unpopular enough when he stepped down as Prime Minister in 2007, then his wilderness years of half million dollar speeches and advising of central Asian autocrats is hardly giving him the public standing to reverse the democratic will of a nation. Blair’s toothy smile (more grimace these days) adorning the debate around Brexit may well have very much the opposite outcome that he is aiming for.

Source Article from https://www.sott.net/article/373309-Tony-Blair-is-back-offering-opinions-no-one-asked-for-and-deflecting-from-his-warmongering-that-led-to-the-refugee-crisis