6mo ago

CNN hosts told they're "complicit" in Trump re-election in live interview

www.newsweek.com CNN hosts told they're "complicit" in Trump re-election in live interview

Presidential historian Allan Lichtman says the media is "complicit in Donald Trump gaslighting his way to the presidency."

You're viewing a single thread.

230 comments

CNN: "Biden's too old! He's unfit to be president."
"What about the convicted felon and rapist? Isn't he unfit?"
CNN: * crickets *
- It's a sad state of affairs when we're deciding who to vote for based on who's less unfit for the job rather than who is more qualified.
  
  That's more or less how democracy works.
- But rapist make news go BRRRRRRRRTTTTTT! -CNN
  
  CNN has been drifting right for a while now, and with this debate it feels like they started to no longer pretend their bias.
  Trump driving the world off a cliff brought alot of clicks and revenue for new agencies. Boring Biden doing the job like an adult cut into their money.
- Just going to ask... Did you only recently start paying attention to the political news? Because since even before January 6th and CNN has certainly covered Trump in detail... His indictment, his convictions, the Jan 6 hearings, etc. Where have you been? Media tends to cover Trump so much in fact that people were yelling at them for the opposite problem: "Don't give him so much attention!!"
  It's universally saturated that anyone with a modicum of sense knows Trump is a convicted felon, rapist, and unfit for office. I say again: NO. SHIT. While I completely sympathize with that frustration and that Biden despite his age issues is still clearly preferable, there exists several problems with this rampant whataboutism:
  The electorate, especially the battleground state undecided voters are simply not that informed and subject to go with whichever media stream of information takes them. Right now they are
  
  It just so happens that the right-wing propaganda machine has a stranglehold on this country, almost always controlling the narrative and thus feeding this both sides rhetoric to aforementioned swing-voters.
  
  When you can't change the electorate, sometimes you must change yourself and play to the electorate you have. We can call for Hitler to step down all we want, but of course, Hitler won't step down. What we do expect is the person holding the moral high ground to do the right thing, however, to give us a better shot.
  
  This entire debate about whether Biden stays or goes is contingent solely on (a) energizing the Democratic grassroots coalition — who is not very energized right now, compared to say Obama or Sanders, and (b) appealing to the concerns of the battleground swing-voters, for whom Biden's age is a deal-breaker.
  
  This is one specific event with one specific scope. Both candidates performed poorly at that event. Only one of them has been in headline after headline. Yes, we all know Trump lies, but not covering his debate lies at least as much as covering Biden's poor showing at the debate. Lies I remind you. One candidate participated in earnest if poorly. The other lied roughly once per speaking minute. As a candidate for President. That should be nonstop news, at least as much so as "Oh yeah, turns out Biden is old, too!"
  
  All due respect but I think this frames the debate in the wrong context:
  Trump performed as expected, and remains the same if not better in the polls.
  Biden performed FAR worse than expected, and not only had a poor debate performance, he confirmed to 50 million people what was already shown to be on their minds, an immutable vice called not just age but senility.
  This notion that, "If we just cover One More Scandal, we'll get him this time!" to me is the definition of insanity.
  So the real question we must all ask ourselves is this: How do you convince the low-info apathetic battleground swing-state voters who hate both candidates and will decide this election? So far, Biden has only lost them as his Presidency has gone on, and to me, that debate sealed the deal.
  
  This notion that, “If we just cover One More Scandal, we’ll get him this time!” to me is the definition of insanity.
  It's not about "this time we'll get him" it's about objective reporting. Trump was expected to lie is NOT a reason to not shout from the rooftops that he's lying.
  How do you convince the low-info apathetic battleground swing-state voters who hate both candidates and will decide this election?
  Nothing but lots of hope. Facts and logic sure ain't doing it.
  
  But let's be clear: they both are being covered simultaneously. The difference is (1) Media knows where people are at, and it being covered won't even change much, as I already pointed out while (2) the only thing that CAN change is for the other guy who we expect to hold the moral high road and recognize the right course of action to change.
  I think it's far, far less likely that an undecided low-info swing voter goes, "Wow, I saw Trump lie again. That's one lie too far. I'm going Biden." than it is, "Wow, a fresh face of the Democratic party who isn't ancient; sure let's try something different."
  Nothing but lots of hope. Facts and logic sure ain’t doing it.
  Well, I appreciate your candor.
  
  Well, I appreciate your candor.
  🙂

230 comments