Leftist attacks Conservative on UC Berkeley Campus

[One Brow]

Can you show any examples of CNN handling a conservative story in this way. Again and again and again, through administration after administration, their coverage is heavily weighted to the left. They have a liberal slant and it is extreme. The fact that you can't see it is amazing.

When Rand Paul was attacked by his neighbor, that was covered regularly. What's an incident you thought was buried?

 

[Ron Mexico]

Ive never singled out ABC. Funny that you recognize them as liberal media. Lol

So they are good news to you?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

When Rand Paul was attacked by his neighbor, that was covered regularly. What's an incident you thought was buried?

You are talking about a non-political attack of a person who happens to be conservative. I think the coverage of the Covington High School situation is a perfect example of the way they approach stories in which they see a political angle. CNN can be counted on to come at every such story with a strong liberal bias.

 

[One Brow]

Being less biased than MSNBC is like being less crapily managed than the Sacramento Kings. Virtually everyone can accomplish that.

Fox doesn't.

The selectively edited video was cute, but I don't recall anyone saying CNN never has liberal commentators. It also has conservative commentators, and I could do a similar piece on CNN commentators expressing conservative views.

 

[One Brow]

You are talking about a non-political attack of a person who happens to be conservative.

So, which story do you think was not covered that should have been? Are there a dearth of liberals attacking well-known conservatives to report?

I think the coverage of the Covington High School situation is a perfect example of the way they approach stories in which they see a political angle. CNN can be counted on to come at every such story with a strong liberal bias.

You mean, by running with the initial story too quickly and then publishing corrections, like like any news outfit with a bias towards sensationalism would have done?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

So, which story do you think was not covered that should have been? Are there a dearth of liberals attacking well-known conservatives to report?

While there may be a dearth of attacks on well-known conservatives, there is not one on run-of-the-mill conservatives. CNN never brings those to our attention. They are all over the Jessie Smoleck type attacks, though. If the president says something mean to a protester at one of his rallies they replay that repeatedly. If a black man gets shot by a cop they almost always weigh in with a story, even if there is no time to get the actual facts.

You mean, by running with the initial story too quickly and then publishing corrections, like like any news outfit with a bias towards sensationalism would have done?

I can show you many examples of CNN making this sort of a mistake with a liberal bias. I am unaware of any with a conservative bias. Do you know of any?

 

[Stoked]

Being less biased than MSNBC is like being less crapily managed than the Sacramento Kings. Virtually everyone can accomplish that.

Grats on one bad video lol.

This has been covered repeatedly on here. We disagree. No CNN isn’t overly liberal. There’s even a damn chart somewhere.

 

[fishonjazz]

I think it's because liberals do a very good job of making people believe that their emotional based appeal is actually an intellectual based appeal. Liberals are also very skilled at shaming people for having conservative opinions. Many conservatives are cautious about expressing their real political opinions in public because they don't enjoy being called racist or having their intelligence and morals questioned, especially when they know that these attacks are not even remotely related to the reasons that they hold the opinions that they do. This is one reason that the conservative vote often turns out to be larger than polling numbers indicate.

Maybe so. Could be that liberals believe in things that might be better for the world though too. Like inclusion vs division, equality vs inequality, science in things like vaccines and global warming vs crackpots on the internet.

Then you have Trump who seems to hate liberals and has kind of become symbolic unfortunately for the other side. When Trump is the symbol for conservatives it's kinda hard not to lean away from him.....

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

I wonder if there is a reason for the liberal bias.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

There is a reason. The media conglomerates are owned by the same international banking cabal that manipulates American politics and foreign policy and that funds both political parties. The media agenda and policy agenda go hand in hand, whereby the media serve to condition the public and rally support for different policy decisions. Obvious examples include the invasion of Iraq, the bank bailout, the war on terror, etc. Sometimes it's to promote a policy or candidate. Sometimes it's to stifle criticism and dissent.

It applies to both the so-called left and the right, as the cabal wants globalist political and monetary control and has historically controlled both parties. As long as both the left and right are voiced at a feverish pitch, other voices of reason are marginalized.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

For the sake of argument, I'll say there are more attacks on MAGA or Trump supporters then attacks by MAGA supporters. This would not surprise me at all. And the reason it would not is because anti-Trump people will, in my view quite understandably, associate MAGA with the hateful, hateful, hateful, hateful rhetoric and actions of one Donald J. Trump. Who among leading political figures on the left is promoting hateful, hateful, rhetoric? If one says Rep. Maxine Waters, you'll just make me laugh. Not even remotely close. I know who has the biggest soapbox in this country. Would it really be any wonder if there were a greater number of attacks on MAGA supporters, given these facts? Well, I don't think so, but that's just how I see it.

The Cult of Trump encourages hatred toward fellow Americans and foreigners both. The Cult of Trump is one ugly movement. And groups like the Proud Boys relish this hatred, and relish violence, and they contribute to it at times. Opponents understand this is the truth.

Violence cannot be condoned. Ever. But it can be seen as a natural result of what Donald Trump has unleashed in this country.

The leading political figure of all political figures, our Commander-in Chief, the Chief Executive of the executive branch of our federal government, is leading the charge where hateful rhetoric is concerned. And we can point to his actions as well, as being symbolic of his absolutely mean spirited approach to individuals and institutions that do not agree with him, at all times. Now he would strip Congress of the power of the purse.

I do not condone violence from anybody, or from any end of the political spectrum. I have been present when violent confrontations occurred at demonstrations during the Civil Rights era, and the Vietnam era. I did not condone such violence then, and I don't condone it now.

Ah I see you're blaming Trump for the violent protests and mob behavior by anti-Trump activists. You must watch network television.

Trump has a boorish demeanor, but this "Trump promoting hate speech" is way overblown. He's by no means the first President to advocate for border security.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Maybe so. Could be that liberals believe in things that might be better for the world though too. Like inclusion vs division, equality vs inequality, science in things like vaccines and global warming vs crackpots on the internet.

Then you have Trump who seems to hate liberals and has kind of become symbolic unfortunately for the other side. When Trump is the symbol for conservatives it's kinda hard not to lean away from him.....

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

The country is strikingly divided on some of the issues you've mentioned. The election of Trump is the result, not the cause.

 

[Red]

Ah I see you're blaming Trump for the violent protests and mob behavior by anti-Trump activists. You must watch network television.

Trump has a boorish demeanor, but this "Trump promoting hate speech" is way overblown. He's by no means the first President to advocate for border security.

Yeah, I can be seen as blaming in the fashion you describe. The anger on the Right is driven by Trump's rhetoric, and I could blame that for attacks by people like the Proud Boys, and the anger on the Left is driven by Trump's rhetoric, and I could blame that for the very emergence of groups like Antifa, and their attacks on Trump supporters. That's one way of putting it, but actually, no I don't watch much network TV at all. I've even stopped watching MSNBC by and large. I also keep in mind that there are fundamental differences in how the Right and Left see the world, which. I honestly try to keep in mind, so that I do not allow myself to see "the other side" as somehow lacking in humanity, leaving me on some kind of moral high horse.

 

[Red]

I truly believe you and many others here are delusional and cant see reality, and only see the world through the propagandized lense built for you from the media. Its both hilarious and concerning. I can easily post evidence of the things I say and we just argue in circles all day.

Please see my comments #3526 and #3527 in the "Trump Fires FBI...." thread, where I've made an effort to address your points here.

 

[Red]

Trump has a boorish demeanor, but this "Trump promoting hate speech" is way overblown. He's by no means the first President to advocate for border security.

Well, it all depends on the individual that responds to Trump promoted hate speech. Recall the incident from a few months ago where a guy sent mail bombs to many of the people that Trump has identified as his enemies, and towards who he has directed his angry rhetoric. Recall the stickers all over the guy's van. They were a broadside of all Trump's "enemies", as Trump identified them, including that "enemy of the people", the dastardly free press. So, the rhetoric was far from overblown for that individual. It was instead inspiration toward committing acts of violence.

 

[Red]

This is who the left really is.

I know this has been mentioned already, but I want to say, that I believe a more accurate intro to the recent attack documented by the clip would be "This is who the individual who launched the attack is". We can dig deep into the source of his motivation, dig deep into his beliefs, which, after all, cannot really be deduced from the clip, other then by simply making assumptions, but, the bottom line is that, at all times, individuals are accountable and responsible for their actions. The Left is here an abstraction, and abstractions do not attack people. People attack people.

Saying "this is who the Left really is" seems very close to saying "every person who self identifies as being left of center politically would also punch the guy if they came across him". And that would be an absurd deduction.

 

[fishonjazz]

The country is strikingly divided on some of the issues you've mentioned. The election of Trump is the result, not the cause.

The election of Trump didn't cause the division. I agree. There has always been division. He is simply increasing it at a much faster pace to an all time high.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Stoked]

The election of Trump didn't cause the division. I agree. There has always been division. He is simply increasing it at a much faster pace to an all time high.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

It got worse under Clinton, then Bush, then Obama and now Trump. Trump is a stoking force in this unlike the last presidents. It was mostly stoked by the opposition partys under them. Now we see the president openly engaged in stoking division as well.

What will we see next? What’s the breaking point before people, on both sides, pull their heads out of their asses?

 

[Harambe]

I'll care when the right owns up to it's Klan roots.

 

[One Brow]

While there may be a dearth of attacks on well-known conservatives, there is not one on run-of-the-mill conservatives. CNN never brings those to our attention. They are all over the Jessie Smoleck type attacks, though.

Whatever else he was, as a supporting player on a prime-time show, Smollet qualifies as well-known.

If the president says something mean to a protester at one of his rallies they replay that repeatedly.

The President qualifies as well-known also.

If a black man gets shot by a cop they almost always weigh in with a story, even if there is no time to get the actual facts.

Are you really that ignorant? Black people are shot by police on practically a daily basis.

I can show you many examples of CNN making this sort of a mistake with a liberal bias. I am unaware of any with a conservative bias. Do you know of any?

What's the liberal bias of covering a news story about a prime-time actor claiming he was attacked? You think no white people falsely claimed they were attacked by black people and had it reported on CNN? If I can provide such an occasion, you'll withdraw your claim?

 

[One Brow]

There is a reason. The media conglomerates are owned by the same international banking cabal that manipulates American politics and foreign policy and that funds both political parties.

I don't disagree about who owns the networks, but banks and financial interests are not particularly liberal organizations.

What the owners really want is for the networks to make money, though. Politicians are easy enough to buy if you have money.