CNN Tells Viewers It's Illegal For Them To Read Wikileaks Document Dumps. CNN Is Wrong
from the you're-not-helping dept
I cut the cord years ago, so the only time I stumble into cable "news" coverage is usually at the gym or airport. And time and time again I'm struck by how the empty prattle is more in line with dystopian satire than anything resembling actual news reporting or intellectual analysis. Even when these channels feature live breaking news stories, you'd be hard pressed to find a reporter willing to call up a source and confirm details of what's happening, resulting in something that's more akin to industrialized speculation than the polished news product of multi-billion-dollar media empires.The latest case in point: CNN's Chris Cuomo was dissecting the latest Wikileaks document dump when he decided to "inform" viewers that it's illegal for anybody but a member of the media to download and view the contents of the Podesta leaks:
"...Remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us."Yeah, that's not how the First Amendment works. Legal precedent has repeatedly made it clear that the First Amendment offers the same protection to the press as to the public, even when it comes to possessing or distributing illegally obtained material (just as long as you weren't directly involved in the theft of the material in question). In its 2001 Bartnicki v. Vopper decision, the Supreme Court rejected even civil liability for distributing illegally obtained cellphone recordings, and refused to differentiate the public from the media in its ruling:
"The . . . question is whether the application of these statutes [that purport to ban distributing illegally obtained material, even when one wasn’t involved in the distribution,] in such circumstances violates the First Amendment. [Footnote: In answering this question, we draw no distinction between the media respondents and Yocum.]"As the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal's law blog were quick to highlight, that case cited New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which also treated press outlets and the public equally in the eyes of the law in such situations. The Supreme Court's Pearson v. Dodd ruling also makes clear that the possession of illegally leaked materials is simply not treated the same way as knowingly possessing physical, stolen property.
This isn't Cuomo's first run in with being violently wrong on legal fundamentals despite having graduated from Fordham with a law degree. He also took a bit of a beating last year when he apparently hallucinated a "hate speech" exception buried in the First Amendment. At some point you have to wonder if CNN is actively trying to be this bad at what it does, or if CNN boss Jeff Zucker is a subversive artist of the highest order, working tirelessly to craft a crushing, satirical look at modern American intellectual dysfunction.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: chris cuomo, first amendment, freedom of the press
Companies: cnn, wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Reading is illegal?
Again, just like the list (secret courts, secret laws, warrants, arrests, trials, evidence, convictions, prisons, etc.) we have become everything that we were fighting in the previous century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reading is illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reading is illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reading is illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reading is illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reading is illegal?
Check out the 1934 Communications Act, which established the FCC, among other things.
SEC. 705. [47 U.S.C. 605] UNAUTHORIZED PUBLICATION OF
COMMUNICATIONS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reading is illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reading is illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reading is illegal?
It's an Establishment outlet, not a partisan one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reading is illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reading is illegal?
Okay, if both of those statements are true you've got two partisan channels. Other channels exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is awesomely funny...and sad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFD4nQARR4c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aynfXGaV-EQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
Lost me right there in the 2nd sentence. There are as many right wing nutjobs that would believe this. Be equally condescending.
I voted today. On vacation on erection day. Got a voted sticker on my shirt. So I would hate to think that something in the debate tonight might make me change my mind. Oh dear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
I have found that just about everyone is a Sunday Constitutionalist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
But if you're going to start throwing stones, it'd behoove you to check your house for glass first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
But really, my guy is bad and so is yours is a poor rebuttal. Trump is not my preferred candidate, but he has not done anything like what Hillary and the DNC are doing. They even have Obama out defending her now telling Trump to stop whining about the election being rigged. Yet it has been rigged up to this point and no reason to believe it isn't still.
Like I said, the DNC is corrupt top to bottom. If a private citizen was caught doing any one of the things they are doing, they would be in jail by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/10/19/13322270/pollwatchers-rigged-election-law-trump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
Likewise the RNC makes the DNC look good. It's not just the Republican Party's own Presidential nominee openly and repeatedly declaring it corrupt. Runner-up Ted Cruz spent the last 7 years campaigning against the "Republican Establishment" before he suddenly became the Republican Establishment's last hope against Trump.
If Hillary is so bad, then why can't the Republican Party find a better alternative? If her "crimes" are so bad, then why can't they find a qualified Republican candidate who isn't guilty of the same crimes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
Non-Sequitor
Just because YOU are okay with her crimes is not any form of a valid argument against the quality of the Candidate that the republicans put up.
The problem is far more fundamental. Some on the left will never vote for someone on the right even if the person on the right aligns with their ideals more. And someone on the right will never vote for someone on the left even if their ideals aligned with them more.
It's call polarization. Your extremes are soooo extreme that not even reason can be used to reason with you.
I hate both of these people, and all I hear is well we can't let that "other jerk" into office cause they are worse. That is willful blindness, a cheap fucking suit excuse to refuse to do your civic duty and tell your party that you sitting this one out for running such a fucking pathetic candidate. We are fucked either way, better to take the opportunity to send a more important message than...
well.... I guess we have no choice now... might as well...
yes, they fucking know it, and they fucking know it very damn well. All they need to do is run a candidate only a little bitter fucking better than the other bastard to get you fucking plebs to vote and be placated little sheeple. Meanwhile, no matter which bitch you get, you still get fucking dry humped till your eyes bug out.
Welcome to America! It's not yours!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
You still haven't answered the question: If Hillary is so bad, then why can't the Republican Party find a better alternative? If her "crimes" are so bad, then why can't they find a qualified Republican candidate who isn't guilty of the same crimes?
No, it's not a non-sequitur. It's central to the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
Admittedly there was some wrong-doing regarding her mail server, but nothing that warranted charges after it was fully investigated, and nothing that wasn't also standard practice for her Republican opponents and the entire previous Republican administration.
Trump has a long, well-documented list of crimes - the outright scam that was Trump University, fraudulent charities, ordering staff no rent to blacks, sexual assaults, etc. etc. etc. And many incidences of "It's not technically illegal, but goddamn is it sleazy."
Not to mention that HE'S the one who keeps inciting violence at his own rallies. Heck, now's he's openly inciting post-election violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
Guess you missed the 15 minutes of the FBI Director spelling out her crimes. Then, surprise, surprise, the DOJ who is appointed by the Dems didn't prosecute. But nice attempt to cover the facts.
And no, he doesn't incite violence, in case you missed those videos, it was the Dems bussing them in to cause violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/18/donald-trump/fbi-director-james -comey-says-donald-trump-has-it-/
Guess you missed the last two Secretaries of State - both Republican - doing the same thing. AND the entire last Republican White House. And Mitt Romney and several candidates in the 2016 Republican primaries. "But nice attempt to cover the facts."
Director Comey was Deputy Attorney General for George W. Bush's administration, leaving to become General Counsel and Senior Vice President of that commie Marxist leftist organization, Lockheed Martin. When he was considered for the supreme court, it was the *left* that opposed him as a Bush holdover. In his confirmation as FBI director he had unanimous Republican support except for Rand Paul, grandstanding on drone issues. But nice, I mean lame and sleazy, accusation.
Trump is on video directly inciting violence. And his followers are on video responding with it. As opposed to your desperate accusations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
Hillary wiped her email 1 day after receiving a subpoena telling her not to; did the last several do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
Including on why Department of Justice didn't prosecute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
I haven't seen a good reason coming from Comey for it, that's true. The link you provided sure doesn't contain one.
Yeah, that server was setup by accident. They never intended for it to happen. Yeah, you bet.
Which is criminal when it comes to handling classified material. Why she wasn't prosecuted for it is still unexplained by Comey.
If so, then they should be prosecuted as well. "But, but, somebody else did it too!" isn't a valid excuse. We can build more prison cells if we really need to.
I think you left out "pinko".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
Although it was legally her decision to make, the Attorney General said that she let Comey make the decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
The DOJ is corrupt, vile, and supports the breaking of law when it suits it. Up to and including murder. Their main rule is "don't get caught."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
By that reasoning then the decision was actually made by the American voters who elected the representatives who appointed the officials. That means Hillary wasn't prosecuted because the American public decide she shouldn't be. In fact, no one in government ever has any responsibility for anything because it all falls back to the voters. Yeah, I see how that works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
You may think that she should be above the law, and you're entitled to your opinion. But, if I had done the same thing I'd be spending a long, long time in prison. That just doesn't seem right to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
Both parties are fucked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
If A is for something, then B had better be against it.
If B proposes something, then any good member of the A party had better vote against it.
Compromise is a sign of weakness, if the other tribe is for something your tribe is against it, even if you personally are for it, and if you have the audacity to suggest that the other tribe might have a good idea on something you'll be torn to shreds by members from your own tribe for being 'weak' and 'betraying the interests of those that voted for you'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
(Wrote up the setup and forgot the 'punchline'...)
As such any sane, 'moderate' candidate from either party would be all but tarred and feathered by their own party for not 'standing up to those twisted evildoers from the other tribe' and being 'too weak to adequately serve the interests of those voting for them'.
After all if people wanted to vote for tribe B they'd vote for someone in tribe B, why 'waste' a vote on someone that might as well be a member of the other tribe but that's too dishonest to admit it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
Each side appears to have its own dog whistles; it's as if they're mirroring each other, divvying up the populace between them and forcing people who won't sign up to pick a side in case the other guy gets in.
That is profoundly undemocratic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
I don't want either elected, but since I'm now forced to pick one of them, It's going to be Trump. He's at least not a politician and just throws whatever out. Clinton is just a flat out liar and criminal. Being a Clinton and a Democrat, she could get away with murder, oh wait, she pretty much has by lack of action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
Just because one does it more or worse "by your definition" does not mean that another sees it the same way. There are truly pro's and con's to how each party handles their business, but in all cases they are both fucking evil!
George Washington warned us that this would happen as long as we allow political parties to constantly involve themselves in the political process or to refer to ourselves by Party, Geography, or groups. We should be Americans first, but no, it's being American last, it is more important to disparage those on the other side even if we destroy the nation in the process. That is where we are right now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
You're right, because he's come from a completely different world to Hillary, so he's never been in a position to do what she's done. Instead he's done a whole lot of other things that make him a despicable human being and completely unfit for the job. A Clinton presidency will quite likely be more of the same shit, but a Trump presidency will cause far more damage, and unless you happen to be very wealthy and white, you will most likely suffer as a result.
"Yet it has been rigged up to this point and no reason to believe it isn't still."
You actually have no reason to believe it is rigged other than Trump's ranting. A claim this serious should be easy to prove, but nobody has provided any credible evidence. You're welcome to try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
Not true. There is quite a lot of evidence of rigging including the admission by the DNC that they were rigging. 1) in their emails 2) in the court.
1. Nevada. Delegates not allowed in the room. Delegates for Bernie Sanders mysteriously no longer registered Democrat. http://observer.com/2016/09/former-democratic-congressional-candidate-says-hillary-stole-nevada/
2. Polling places suppressed.
3. DNC Convention. Bernie delegates not allowed in. Not allowed to leave to go to the bathroom. Not allowed back in. Places taken by seat fillers.
4. Vote tallies changed on live tv and votes taken away from Bernie Sanders and given to Hillary Clinton.
5. Auditors being ignored when the tell the election board that they saw votes being miscounted.
6. Polling staff being told by the DNC not to give the voters in California the correct ballots to independents.
7. People's party affiliation changed without their knowledge and with signatures not their own.
8. DNC operator told reporter "We've been busing people in for 50 years, we're not going to change now."
9. Voter rolls purged contrary to state election law. NY for example.
http://www.anonews.co/dnc-rigged-election/
dem large scale voter fraud
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
> anything like what Hillary and the DNC are doing
Like grabbing women by the pussy or publiblcy fantasizing about boning his daugther? Classy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
I'm still wondering why hot-mic talking still trumps (ugh) the whole point where he raped a thirteen year old (or rather coerced her into having sex and her mother into cooperating). That's looking like it may not even have been an isolated incident.
Trump is not just a creepy stalker lech, but an outright sexual predator. Who's committed sexual predator crimes like raping little girls.
As for his fitness for running the president, look up the Last Week Tonight bit on scandals. Mr. Oliver juxtaposes nicely the amount of Clinton scandal in comparison to the amount of Trump scandal, the latter just usually being buried in his moat of outrageousness.
As he puts it, it's very reasonable to be angry at some of the things Clinton has done, but if so, you have to be outraged at what Trump has done. Then he showers himself with raisins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
Seems to me you are the one that needs to educate yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
So if you are going to be caught, why is it better that I die next to a bowl of honey vs a bowl of vinegar? The trap is sprung either way.
People are too preoccupied with how the message is delivered instead of the truth of the message. The sign of maturity is the ability to not take random insults so seriously. People insult me all day long, I have gotten so use to it I certainly do not bother wasting time at taking offense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
(The claim is no more or less credible rewritten this way.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
1) Hilary wants Open Borders.
So does Donald Trump. At least he did in 2013. He said it was critical. And if fact, variations on the statements made by Hilary I think would be good things.
2)The Iran deal was awful and even Democrats know it.
That email was clearly lacking in context, And could actually mean many things, perhaps referencing a private conversation where one of the individuals 'called' that response. We don't actually know what was said here as the "Yup" comment from Podesta does not answer any query from the original email.
3)Bernie Sanders was bribed into supporting Hillary. But he did it for the people! Aaand his lakefront vacation home.
The wording in the email does not suggest an actual exchange of cash (a point the source of this analysis now admits). In fact it discusses a solid standard political tactic. The Republicans sign a pledge to support the nominee, this is no different. The Clinton campaign just suggested they produce goodwill between candidates and not produce ads that undermine the eventual nominee. Politicians working together? What scandal!
4) The DNC created fake, sexist ads under the alias of Trump organizations.
i see no evidence they were posted. And, these posts are clear hyperbole. I don't see how this is more serious then Republicans creating propeganda sites masquerading as local news, or creating fake websites from democratic candidates, or creating fake democratic fundraising sites to steal Democrats money.
5) Hillary believed Obama committed voter fraud
-Both wrong and misleading. Some people of unknown position and authority in Colorado (sound like they might just be private citizens) thought that Obama was bringing ineligible voters to Caucuses in 2008.
6)Clinton staffers wished the San Bernardino shooter was white.
Misleading. John Podesta made that claim. No email was released that agreed with him. I am unsure what this has to do with "their tactics".
7)The Clinton campaign is HUGE on media collusion.
Not sure how this email proves media collusion. It was a mass email from someone in the Sanders team about a Sanders Twitterstorm sent to political consultant Donna Brazile, who forwarded it to the Clinton campaign. I see no signs of a media organization colluding with Clinton.
8) Speaking of media collusion, Ezra Klein is big on helping to make that happen.
Ezra Klein was mentioned as someone how would hold a journalist 'accountable'. From context, that would appear to mean accountable for discussing excerpts from emails devoid of context and claiming a different meaning than what was intended. Kinda like this entire chain of accusations.
9)Hillary knowingly, criminally deleted her emails.
The emails in this case neither reveal anything new, nor prove Clinton knew anything more then she claimed. The staffers claim no conversations with Clinton about the subject, just reservations about the information everyone at that point had.
10)Obama and Hillary communicated via private email, and it was kept hidden.
The only thing in the wikileaks emails that they cite is a short email. It asked if they should withhold emails to from [reasonably assumed] Clinton to Obama. And ponder if Executive Privilege should be declared. Since everyone communicated with Clinton via private email, I don't know why it would be surprising the President did. there is no evidence that Obama was using an unknown private email, nor was there evidence that his copies of the emails aren't archived on a government server. In fact we don't even have a response, so we don't know that Clinton copies of these emails were even withheld.
Honestly, I'm not even gonna get into the second Video. If you need to blatantly misattribute and sensationalize the information to 'prove' misconduct, you are on a witch hunt.
As a note, the democratic party is not my party. I'm Pirate party. i just don't like partisan mudslinging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
https://wikileaks.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
Back during the 2009 fight over healthcare, he came north to Canada to videotape a hatchet job on the Canadian system. To start with he went to a PRIVATE clinic - without an appointment - had to wait, and declared it a socialism problem. And he had trouble getting into the strip-mall parking lot, which he also declared to be a Canadian healthcare problem.
It was one sleazy half-truth, 1/8th-truth, misrepresentation and outright lie after another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
Your messenger is a professional liar with a long history of telling politically-motivated lies. No doubt there are people in the Republican Party who will point out the same thing, saying "He's very good at what he does." Are they attacking him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
Given the heavy redaction, it's difficult to say exactly why this particular email was of such great concern to Kennedy. Given that the email was marked "Classified: SECRET", perhaps he was simply concerned that it proved that Hillary sent classified information over her private network. Or, given the timing of the message being sent just 12 days after the election in 2012, perhaps there is evidence in the email that Hillary and Obama both knew from the beginning that the September 11 attacks in Benghazi were never just a "spontaneous reaction to a youtube video" but a coordinated terrorist attack...if so, Mitt Romney would sure love to have a look at what's behind those whited out boxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet another reason to ignore CNN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Company Mouthpiece
Oh Yea, CNN's talking head blabbed 'we don't know how this fire started' at Waco as the Army tank behind him was punching holes in the 'compound' with it's flaming gun barrel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At some point you have to wonder if CNN is actively trying to be this bad
Yes, they are trying to do this on purpose. Not to be bad, but to protect the Dems. Look at the leaked documents or watch the videos and you will learn that the liberal media is literally in the Dems back pocket. They alerted Hillary to questions in the debates. They get stories ok'd by her campaign manager before running them. The media and the DNC is corrupt top to bottom. Now the truth is out, the libs can no longer deny it. They will though, in their own little effort to stop people from reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lol. They could deny the sun is bright and that water is wet and a large percentage of their viewers will accept it still. They are spinning everything to try to cast doubt on the facts that have been revealed. They are directly responsible for both current candidates due to their coverage and that was on purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
competition on the intellectual dysfunction front
>>at modern American intellectual dysfunction.
If so, then I'd give them a 6 on a TLC scale.
(Seriously, though, NASA must really be ashamed of how TLC, partly their creation, devolved.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: competition on the intellectual dysfunction front
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A solution
Now you can't read anything illegal. Just as Newspeak will make thoughtcrime impossible. A glorious new world.
The sender of an email can ensure you can no longer read it.
The emails or texts between a government criminal conspirator and their lobbyist could become unreadable.
It's all "secure" in their mind.
But then Comey's head would explode because some nerd forgot to implement a government back door. Why can't things just magically be secure for the right people, and insecure for the right other people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- Frank Herbert, Dune
Convincing people that reading WikiLeaks is outlawed, is pretty close to this maxim in action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Papers, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The damage is done
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I sometimes have to check...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
green is the way out of this mess
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: green is the way out of this mess
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CNN "Loses" Satellite Feed Just As Congressman Mentions WikiLeaks
"Two thirds of the public know that Hillary Clinton's a liar, she can't be trusted and now the two faces of Hillary are coming out – the fact through Wikileaks she says one thing and [feed interrupted]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep the Sheep Stupid
Add to that, people who read may well see information that may make them question their blind faith in their chosen political party (no matter what side it is on).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CNN isn't wrong...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Popehat covered this as well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Popehat covered this as well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hillary is awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hillary is awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think George had it right
https://youtu.be/rsL6mKxtOlQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cable news and the race to the bottom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jill Stein 2016 because 2 wrongs don't make a right
- Clinton an admirer of and taking advice from known war criminal Henry Kissinger.
- Clinton colludes with Super-packs (illegal).
- Clinton supports the TPP which is basically a corporate overthrow of the US government. Because corporations can sue the government willy nilly for supposed losses of profit. And they are protected from being sued for producing deadly or harmful products.
- Clinton supports and promotes fracking which destroys ground water with toxic chemicals. Aquifers are a major source of water for drinking and agriculture. Destroying them is criminal. Not to mention the air pollution (global warming methane 25% more powerful than c02) and the earthquakes.
- There are many emails detailing how the Clinton campaign colluded with the press having for example the Clinton campaign read and change articles before being published. And debate questions submitted prior to the debate.
- Debate moderator working for the Clinton campaign.
- The Clinton campaign admitted in court to having sabotaged Bernie Sanders' campaign.
- Hillary Clinton deleted emails while under investigation and so destroyed evidence.
- The order not to prosecute Hillary Clinton "came from higher up." So from the Executive Branch.
- Bill Clinton met privately with the Attorney General while Hillary Clinton was under investigation.
- Clinton campaign staffer murdered days after damaging information released by Wikileaks on the DNC's activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jill Stein 2016 because 2 wrongs don't make a right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jill Stein 2016 because 2 wrongs don't make a right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jill Stein 2016 because 2 wrongs don't make a right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jill Stein 2016 because 2 wrongs don't make a right
So many people believing the lies put out by the Hillary Campaign. So few doing the small amount of research necessary to know that those claims by the HRC media are false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jill Stein 2016 because 2 wrongs don't make a right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No news is good news
I predict the news media will suffer major losses in viewers and readers because of the blatant false reporting, bias and attempts to mislead the public this election cycle. Trust is lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My statement is as truthful as his.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"At some point you have to wonder if CNN is actively trying to be this bad at what it does, or if CNN boss Jeff Zucker is a subversive artist of the highest order, working tirelessly to craft a crushing, satirical look at modern American intellectual dysfunction."
Note quite, CNN is just a leftist fraud masquerading as a news organization. It believes that it is functioning quite well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The difference
The Corporations are run by the "head" of the company.
Politicians make policy, but have "underlings" carry out everything then get back to the politician.
In Corporations, the "boss" is responsible for the decisions made.
In Politics. the Office holder is keep away from that "responsibility." (plausible deniability)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is an important point because legally the press and the public are the same. Anyone can publish these days, anyone can be a journalist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All material can be subject to intellectual property protections. What's the difference between possessing a leaked copy of something "newsworthy" and a bootleg copy of a film?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's contractual...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cnn used to be a legitimate news source
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cnn used to be a legitimate news source
Far enough to see Fox News' "fair and balanced" ankles?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One critical point seems to have been missed.
We (that is the public) are the media.
There is nothing special about a news correspondent from a professional news service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keeping up with the Joneses
Competing with Fox is HARD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CNN's Chris Cuomo
The "news" agencies now being the propaganda outlet of the government - we have lawyers as newscasters who are lying to the public when talking about what is, and isn't, legal (in this instance everyone reading these emails).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do agree that Obama's call for "truth" in public communication is an obvious attempt to censor the news. Obama's "truth" is certainly not my TRUTH. My TRUTH is rarely congruent with that of any politician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thus sprach Chris!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you for all knowledge i need a team with a safehouse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]