Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Anderson Cooper - Propagandist
In case you haven't figured out that Republicans want Obama elected, just sit back and watch CNN.Take Anderson 360, for example. Please.Cooper gives us multiple shots of a former Clinton superdelegate running to Obama, with much discussion of how significant this might be.
Not a peep that Clinton picked up FOUR superdelegates today. Nada.We get David Gergen warning how Clinton continuing to campaign is not just hurting Obama, it is hurting Clinton too, and how it is her fault that McCain is doing so well.We hear the same thing hammered over and over by other meat puppets: Most democrats want Obama to be the candidate, and want this OVER.MOST DEMOCRATS DO NOT WANT A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. THEY WANT IT OVER. THEY WANT CLINTON OUT. THEY WANT CLINTON OUT. IF YOU VOTE FOR CLINTON, YOU ARE UNPATRIOTIC. IT WILL BE DISASTROUS FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.In case you didn't understand what I just said, watch Anderson 360, and every meat puppet on the show will parrot the same message until it is drummed into your robotic skull, and it will be robotic after a one hour commercial for Barack Obomb.
Comments (20)
CNN seems to have achieved what no one thought possible.
Obama supporters think they are pro-Clinton, Clinton supporters think they are pro-Obama, and most of us have resorted to changing the channel to stop the insanity. Anyone know what their ratings have been lately?
But I never pegged Anderson as a Republican.
May 2, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
If every person questioned gives an anti-Clinton response, then I would say a program was biased against her, wouldn't you?
And wouldn't you say that a news show with multiple guests should include a balance of individuals who support Clinton, and individuals who support Obama?
Or do you think that a show in which every guest talks of how Clinton is hurting the party by continuing the democratic process, and should get out now, and just let Obama have the nomination, might be just a little biased toward Obama?
Or do you think that it's being unfair to Obama as well as unfair to Clinton?
May 2, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
add-on supers from NY were not a surprise. they were in the books already, just waiting to be "elected"
same with Obama's Indiana supers
we haven't had a "defection" - somebody switching sides - yet.
this is a big deal.
especailly because of the well thought out (and rather critical) letter he wrote explaining his switch.
you might want to read it. it'll give you a way to rationalize why this is happening.
May 2, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and BTW, he's only urging the Supers to vote one way
he's saying primaries should go on as scheduled and people should vote for their choice.
the republicans are still having primaries.
May 2, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aside from the daily roll-out of Supers, this is the first positive Obama story we've seen in a week dominated by that other story. I agree with memoryaid, and defection by a former DNC chair is huge news. HuffPost even gave Andrew his own column today for his letter of intention:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-j-andrew/on-my-switch-from-clinton_b_99621.html
It's a well-reasoned and well-written letter at that. I hope he encourages other Supers to commit as well.
May 2, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ask yourself, would you have a problem with this if they were reporting that Hillary had gotten a super delegate to switch to her from Obama? Thought so.
May 2, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
If a news show harped on one superdelegate that one candidate picked up, without ever mentioning that the other candidate picked up FOUR superdelegates on that same day, I would not like being played for a fool.
May 2, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, I just saw this EXACT SAME POST at myDD--by a poster calling themselves internetstar. I suppose it could be the same person posting under two different monikers--
At myDD:
"The Anderson Cooper Propaganda Mill
by internetstar, Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:51:43 PM EST"
Gawd, I hate what's happening in this race. It seems to be bringing out the worst in so many people--regardless if this is the same poster and there's no plagiarism going on...
This whole process has devolved into pure, unadulterated UGLIness.
May 2, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to clue you in, but people do frequent more than one blog.
Is this the first time you've noticed?
May 2, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
And why is reporting a fact considered ugliness by you?
Do you work for CNN, perhaps?
May 2, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe he thought that Clinton's 4 and Obama's other 4 cancelled eachother out so he only covered Obama's net gain of 1?
Eh, I dunno about Cooper. Campbell Brown is awful though.
May 2, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great new article up on the HuffPost front page:
"Obama Rolls On"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/01/obama-rolls-on_n_99758.html
Another positive report on the frontrunner; it must be a conspiracy.
May 2, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, "Present" slumlord, and also a bit mind-f*d from the situation: the enemy here is the corporate media. It is biased to itself.
What you are failing to get is that Hillary's chances of winning are incredibly slim.
May 2, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe because if Hillary picks up 4 and Obama 5...it's actually edge Obama?...
Oh and back when the kitchen sink statement was rolled out....some predicted ugliness in the Democrats primary...
May 2, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The real propaganda is your post. CNN and most of its talking heads are pro-Clinton spinners...Wolf Blitzer. Try again, but next time, try to be more convincing.
May 2, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The media does the Hillary blitz right before any primary, during which they ignore all news related to Obama (unless it is negative) and the run Hillary's talking points verbatim and unquestioned.
Then, between primaries, they return to a semi-reality-based version of what is actually happening, and give the true front-runner some time and credit. Not too much, but some.
My take is that they have seen how split the party is over the Clinton brand and the new Obama brand, and they have found that they can have a margin of influence in the primaries. Thus, they do their best to keep the race going as long as possible.
Let's face it: if Hillary had been ANY other candidate, she would have bowed out and given her blessing to the leader after losing 13-straight primaries and it was obvious that she could not catch back up on the delegate count. ANY other candidate would have done that. And the media would have properly ignored ANY other candidate after such a pounding.
May 2, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
interesting how you've ignored hard facts to respond with vague generalities.
On the rare occasions Begala or Carville are on CNN, they are so afraid of not being asked back, they are cowed to neutrality.
You obviously don't watch these channels.
Like most Obama supporters, you don't know what you're talking about, but do have all the answers.
May 2, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been thinking for some time about writing a post on "bias." This word does not mean what many, the author of this post especially, believe it to mean. Briefly, bias and corruption are not synonyms. CNN is corrupt:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&adxnnlx=1209398788-%20%20cvRg4Q7X/yqPDDjLqjdA
This level of corruption amounts to not just one, but many crimes. Corruption is a serious problem. But if you were to accuse CNN of a "pro-military bias" then you would be using "bias" as a euphemism for "crime" or "corruption." In fact, in this case, it would be "war crime." Your analysis by result, after the fact, with no evidence, is a waste of time. There is plenty of evidence (if you care to invest the time to follow it) of corrupt acts behind the scenes that would amount to political bias. For example, having Paul Begala and James Carville as analysts, etc. But to indicate that "bias," in the sense, not of corruption, but of "preference without evidence of crime" or "absence of coverage" is a serious problem, on par with actual media scandals such as war crimes? This is ridiculous.
May 2, 2008 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Present, you should take the quotes off your name so people can respond to you.
I honestly stopped watching CNN at least a month ago. I have no doubt that whatever show you were watching was bashing Clinton. The problem I have with all these shows is that they've become one giant mouthpiece for opinions. They bring on these blathering heads who we are supposed to some reason look to for great insight.
Take Donna Brazile for example. Does the woman have a job? I mean, a real one? Other than superdelegate-to-the-stars? Why is she on every single channel? And why are we supposed to listen to her as the "voice" of superdelegates?
In any event, I think there's an ebb and flow as to which candidate they are bashing which day. Leaving out John McCain of course, since he's perfect.
May 2, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is rubbish! Another Talking point to mold minds. CNN is so busy trying to get away from their label (the most Liberal news network) by the republican liars and such, that they go out of their way to back anything Fox Does! Who is Fox backing, I think we all know the answer to that. The problem that allot of Hillary supporters have is they forget that she lost 12 in a row and then had Kitchen sink comming from her campaign. To think there wouldn't be any negativity to come after that to me would be ignorant! Stop re-writting history!
CNN also(in my opinion) thinks its good if a group thinks this and another thinks that. I assume they would think they are being fair by getting that kind of feed back. Maybe I have written some ridiculous things, but this topic is as ridiculous as anything I have written as one of (those Obama supporters)on TPM!
May 2, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment