CNN: Censoring Nonconformist News

As I've pointed out, major news networks tend to ignore third party candidates. This happens all the time. But to flat-out censor the opinions of your own focus group to remove any concept of a third party option? That's just low.

Lower than low, really. (I'd say it's deplorable, but that word has already been taken this election season.) The following is from an article from LibertyBuzz, so yes, it's admittedly biased, but what news source isn't?

Clearly, the debates weren't on HBO.

After the debate, they asked all of us in the focus group if we were decided on a candidate. Out of 28 panel members, 5 said they were decided on Clinton, 2 said they were decided on Trump, and 12 said they were going to vote 3rd party. But once they saw the response, they reshot the segment and replaced "3rd party" with "still undecided".

This comes from a Facebook post made by one of the members of the focus group, Justin Smith. Later amended by Smith to clarify a few things, the post explains how CNN originally asked the group to raise their hands for either Clinton, Trump, or a third party candidate. CNN then told the panel they were going to re-shoot and removed the option for third party, leaving many to indicate they were "undecided" as this was the only non-Trump, non-Clinton option they were given. 

For the rest of this post, I'm going to make an assumption that Justin Smith's account of things is accurate. Do I know this for certain? No, of course not. I wasn't there and I only have access to what CNN.com has provided. It's entirely possible that it didn't happen this way. In fact, I hope it didn't. I'd like to think that we're not being censored from the truth. But if there's a chance that this all happened, the following is how I feel about it.

Moving on. 

The transcript for this, of course, only gives what was aired. Pamela Brown is asked whether the VP debate has influenced anyone's vote, and her response follows:

"It sure did. In fact, let's take a tally here. I want to ask everyone in the group, after watching this debate, who in this group will now vote for the Clinton-Kaine ticket come November? Raise your hand. All right. So as you see, we have five people who say they will vote for Clinton-Kaine.

If you're getting screwed in this poll, raise your hand.

Let's look at Trump-Pence. Raise your hand if you will vote for them come November. Two people. And those still undecided, still have no idea who they're going to vote for, raise your hands. All right, Wolf, as you see, a majority here in this room at the University of Richmond still undecided."

Except, according to Smith, about 40% of the people in that room had already indicated that they were planning to vote for a third party candidate. If you add those 12 to the seven who indicated they will be voting for either Trump or Clinton, 2/3 of the panel have already chosen a candidate. By definition, the majority of the room (with majority literally meaning more than half) is decided, not UNdecided. And to suggest they have "no idea" who they're voting for is simply not true.  

It's no surprise that CNN is backing Clinton. Not only is CNN notorious for leaning to the left (hence the reason my dad, among others, calls it the "Communist News Network"), but this Observer opinion piece points out that host Chris Cuomo let it slip in 2015 that they were one of Clinton's biggest backers. (If you watch the clip, he doesn't specifically say that CNN is a Clinton supporter. But since CNN is generally considered part of the media, and due to his use of "we" in his statements, I think we can safely make some inferences about where they stand.)

Still, CNN (and all other media outlets) has a responsibility to accurately report the news. I had to search around for their mission/vision statement and finally found it on the Cable News Network blog (via Wordpress). Under accuracy, it is stated that "CNN is committed to achieving accuracy. We strive to present the truth to our audience." They even specify ways by which they ensure accuracy, such as "guarding against carelessness and omission of important news" and "continuously seeking and reporting the truth." 

And then, under the section titled Objectivity, is this gem.

Totally checks out! *WINK*

CNN strives to provide the most neutral and unbiased stories to our audience so that they can obtain the most accurate information. We consider a range of varying perspectives and treat controversial subjects, as well as all other subjects, with impartiality.

So I wonder, then, which part of censorship they believe supports their mission and vision for the company. It's not accurate, as in doing so they both omitted important news and failed to report the truth. And it's not impartial, as the way they presented the information is clearly biased against third party candidates (and in favor of Clinton). Hmmm... 

Lastly, I want to share this statement from their career page We are CNN:

We are the now and the next. The power behind the people building the future.

We are born from the spirit of innovation.

We are created from the idea that people around the world want more, need more, deserve more.

We are the home of the global digital revolution.

We are CNN.

Well, they're right. We do want more, need more, and deserve more. Let's start with the truth (the WHOLE truth) and go from there.

A (Not-So) Quick Update

The end of the semester is just around the corner, so I'm working my big ol' butt off to make sure it ends well! I finished my rock and roll class (with a 96% even!), so now it's just on to Psych. I took the day off from work to get started on my final paper (sleeping in until 11 probably wasn't the best idea, but it felt oh-so good). Currently I have a title page, an abstract, an intro and part of methods. It's definitely a good start, but there's still a lot of work ahead of me. Thankfully, Hubby is gone all weekend, so I'll have plenty of time to work on it with minimal distractions.

Now, to address everything that's been going on. 

First off, fuck. Seriously, just... fuck.

OK, that having been said, this week has been beyond insane. I was working Monday, checking out Twitter for random updates when I saw something about a blast at the Boston Marathon. (It was just before 2 PM here, so the bombs had JUST gone off.) I sent a message to Hubby, who didn't see anything on CNN yet. He checked FOX news and found something about it. To say it snowballed after that would be like calling a hurricane a little rain. It avalanched. (Yep. Making it a word. Deal with it.) Within a few minutes, the internet exploded. Twitter and Facebook were flooded with updates and links. Pictures, videos, and commentary were on every site available. It wasn't long before #BostonMarathon and #PrayforBoston were trending, and the number of those affected climbed with each update. It was terrifying.

I don't think I got any work done after that. The rest of my day was spent scouring the internet for updates (mostly on this site), trying to learn the extent of the situation. I was desperately hoping that it was just a pipeline that burst or some terrible accident. When it was confirmed as a bomb, my heart sunk and my stomach knotted up. After I logged off of work, I made myself go lie down. I felt physically ill, and I knew that if I stayed anywhere near the computer, I'd keep torturing myself, hunting for pictures and videos to satisfy my morbid curiosity. That night, Hubby and I just spent time together. We watched TV, had dinner, and tried to be thankful that we had each other and we were safe. There's a certain sense of guilt that comes with that, knowing that others are suffering, but it's something good to think about and be grateful for nonetheless.

The rest of the week was simultaneously painfully slow and exceedingly fast. The explosion near Waco (and this insanely lucky/unlucky guy who escaped BOTH incidents). A potential gunman at Carroll University (which turned out to be an airsoft gun, thankfully). The ricin letters. Some crazy shit with an envelope and some (probably) psychosomatic symptoms in Beloit. And let us not forget CNN's fabulous reporting about the nonexistent suspect in custody. It was all unbelievable.

And then last night happened. I can't recall the timeline exactly, but I know that Hubby told me about a shooting at MIT. We both started following Twitter updates and checking news sites for info. We started listening in on the Boston PD scanner for awhile, and between that and Twitter, it almost felt like we were witnessing it ourselves. There were pictures, first-hand accounts, videos... Technology has made it possible for us to be on top of news before any new stations even pick up the story. CNN, of course, was extra slow in posting about the Watertown/MIT goings-on (which was probably for the best; wouldn't want to jump the gun and report something prematurely...), but Anonymous and the scanner kept us as up-to-date as if we were there. 

It was intense. And scary. And I had some pretty awful dreams last night. But I marvel at the things technology has made possible, and am thankful for the good it brings. It showed me the kindness and resilience of people in the wake of such a tragedy, like the epic words of Stephen Colbert, the heroic actions of those both at the marathon and nearby, and the power and unity of Bruins' fans singing the Star-Spangled Banner. 

Patton Oswalt said it best:

...the vast majority stands against that darkness and, like white blood cells attacking a virus, they dilute and weaken and eventually wash away the evildoers and, more importantly, the damage they wreak. This is beyond religion or creed or nation. We would not be here if humanity were inherently evil. We'd have eaten ourselves alive long ago. 

So when you spot violence, or bigotry, or intolerance or fear or just garden-variety misogyny, hatred or ignorance, just look it in the eye and think, "The good outnumber you, and we always will."

#BostonStrong