Law CBS pays out (settles) for election interference

[ShadowRun]

Yes.

Show me the ad where her entire rambling nonsensical response was aired. Oh' that's right, there wasn't one. They cut the response in ads, and then inserted the most favorable short answer they could muster for the interview.

The fact that you guys continue to play dumb over the Liberal media so OBVIOUSLY running interference for their preferred political candidates, is beyond pathetic. You guys really think you're still fooling people, 'eh?. Even after all this, you still have that confidence to tell people not to believe their lying eyes. Unbelievable. I bet you still think Joe Biden is sharp as a tack, too.

Oh yea do you know the population of Iran? how about the SSN numbers of all the workers at CBS

 

[Madmick]

You don't have to believe me that Bezos was at least partly motivated by financial interests, but that's the kind of gullibility a child who believes in Santa Clause has.

Second time I'll accept this concession.

You didn't, which is why I pointed out you are glossing over a clear attempt to chill 1A rights by Trump and sympathetic conservatives like yourself.

So you're assigning my position for me. Got it. A prejudiced thinker.

Here's you claiming that CBS engaged in journalistic malpractice, followed by a laughable attempt to talk about about anything but what bad journalism CBS engaged in.

I called it "bad journalism". Another poster invoked the term "malpractice", and you got him confused for me. LMFAO. Can't say I particularly mind his description, not that I believe it holds any serious objective weight, but no, obviously "bad" is not a synonym for "malpractice".

So again, what bad journalism did CBS engage in?

"Deceptive editing". I'm doing you a favor since you have the memory of a goldfish.

 

[HereticBD]

Who at CBS was pulling fof Harris?? Give me their names and titles.

Is that all you got? I have to know the names of the entire staff to conclude that there is obvious bias reporting going on at that network? Notice there was no such ad provided...

Since you asked though, how would you rate Margaret Brennon's journalistic integrity? If it's anything but "Liberal hack mouthpiece", then that's all I need to know about your judgement. Not that you'd ever be honest in calling out Liberal hacks, that is.

 

[avenue94]

Second time I'll accept this concession.

So you're assigning my position for me. Got it. A prejudiced thinker.

I called it "bad journalism". Another poster invoked the term "malpractice", and you got him confused for me. LMFAO. Can't say I particularly mind his description, not that I believe it holds any serious objective weight, but no, obviously "bad" is not a synonym for "malpractice".

"Deceptive editing". I'm doing you a favor since you have the memory of a goldfish.

Are you trying to argue that journalistic malpractice and bad journalism aren't synonyms? Weird hill to die on. I've been clear that you haven't presented any evidence and have been talking about anything but the point.

And what evidence is there that the editing was meant to deceive viewers, as opposed to benign or unintentional? I see your bezos and Trump standards are different, magically of course.

 

[Madmick]

Are you trying to argue that journalistic malpractice and bad journalism aren't synonyms?

Yes. Not trying, succeeding. Objectively.

Weird hill to die on. I've been clear that you haven't presented any evidence and have been talking about anything but the point.

Nobody's grave is being dug but yours. I'm just punishing you for unmistakably confusing me with another poster. I'll repeat this as many times as you allow it.

And what evidence is there that the editing was meant to deceive viewers, as opposed to benign or unintentional? I see your bezos and Trump standards are different, magically of course.

LMFAO. Who do you think you are kidding, here? Talk about hills to die on. Wowsers.

 

[avenue94]

Is that all you got? I have to know the names of the entire staff to conclude that there is obvious bias reporting going on at that network?

You're arguing it was intentional, which means we would have at several people directly involved in this conspiracy, all the way up to C suite. Yet we haven't heard a peep about such behavior. So who are these shot callers?

Notice there was no such ad provided...

Both versions were aired on different programs. So why did CBS only "cover up" Harris's answer on one program? Did they forget about their other shows?

Since you asked though, how would you rate Margaret Brennon's journalistic integrity? If it's anything but "Liberal hack mouthpiece", then that's all I need to know about your judgement. Not that you'd ever be honest in calling out Liberal hacks, that is.

Unremarkable reporter in quality whose career I'm not very familiar with. I don't rate TV reporters as highly as traditional written journalism since appearances and other factors weigh in more when hiring.

And you seem to be very confused here if you think I don't criticize journalists for political biases. I came up on the conservative side of media and journalism.

Yes. Not trying, succeeding. Objectively.

This is gonna be good. What's the difference between bad journalism and journalistic malpractice?

Nobody's grave is being dug but yours. I'm just punishing you for unmistakably confusing me with another poster. I'll repeat this as many times as you allow it.

I didn't confuse you for another poster. But sure keep ducking questions you can't answer.

LMFAO. Who do you think you are kidding, here? Talk about hills to die on. Wowsers.

So...the evidence here, where is it?

Lawyers with strong cases who venue shopped a very biased judge and stand to go to discovery don't settle for pennies on their original ask and no admission of fault.

 

[HereticBD]

You're arguing it was intentional, which means we would have at several people directly involved in this conspiracy, all the way up to C suite. Yet we haven't heard a peep about such behavior. So who are these shot callers?

The Democrat donors who own CBS? It's not some vast conspiracy. They're just hacks. Do you need such information to conclude the same about FOX? Of course you don't.

Both versions were aired on different programs.

What program was her long rambling answer aired on? Certainly wasn't the "Prime Time" one...ya know...the one that was advertised and most people watched...

Seriously, show me the aired interview where the original answer was given. Can you, or are you just going along with some talking points that you're trying to make fact?

Unremarkable reporter in quality whose career I'm not very familiar with. I don't rate TV reporters as highly as traditional written journalism since appearances and other factors weigh in more when hiring.

Is she a left wing hack hack, or not?

 

[Madmick]

This is gonna be good. What's the difference between bad journalism and journalistic malpractice?

The former subsumes the latter, but the latter doesn't subsume the former. Do you understand what a synonym is?

I didn't confuse you for another poster. But sure keep ducking questions you can't answer.

You did. He specifically used the term "malpractice". I did not. Memory of a goldfish.

So...the evidence here, where is it?

Lawyers with strong cases who venue shopped a very biased judge and stand to go to discovery don't settle for pennies on their original ask.

This reminds me of the E Jean Carroll interview that CNN immediately edited to crop out the part where she described rape as "hot" for their official channel's YouTube upload of the interview. People like you would argue exactly as you have here, "Where's the evidence they were deliberately attempting to whitewash the interview to make their accuser's portrayal more favorable to the audience?"

Do you really think people can't see through you. Are you that dense?

 

[avenue94]

The Democrat donors who own CBS? It's not some vast conspiracy. They're just hacks. Do you need such information to conclude the same about FOX? Of course you don't.

The owners are Paramount Global, so which one of their shareholders are you referring to.

And the largest shareholder of Fox is the Murdoch Family Trust my guy lol. You seem to think all media conglomerates are structured the same.

What program was her long rambling answer aired on? Certainly wasn't the "Prime Time" one...ya know...the one that was advertised and most people watched...

The longer answer was on 60 Minutes. As has always been the case in journalism, interviews are edited for brevity, clarity and timeslot. You have google.

Why would CBS conspired to cover up Harris' answer on one show but not on another?

Is she a left wing hack hack, or not?

See earlier point about being unfamiliar with her career since I don't get my news from TV.

The former subsumes the latter, but the latter doesn't subsume the former. Do you understand what a synonym is?

That's quite the non-answer and funny since your response here means that bad journalism includes all journalistic malpractice. In other words, your attempt to sound smart means they are indeed synonyms in this case.

Do you really think people can't see through you. Are you that dense?

This is hardcore panic wrestling. It's a very simple question, what is the evidence that CBS violated journalistic norms or ethics? Instead of presenting what you purport to be very clear evidence, you've brought up January 6, E Jean Carrol, Jeff Bezos and literally anyone but the people involved in this case.

 

[Madmick]

That's quite the non-answer and funny since your response here means that bad journalism includes all journalistic malpractice. In other words, your attempt to sound smart means they are indeed synonyms in this case.

But not all "journalistic malpractice" is synonymous with other forms of bad journalism this greater catch-all would subsume! Welcome the the basics of logic. Next time, just keep track of who is using what term. Due to your goldfish memory, you assigned a claim to me made by another poster.

This is hardcore panic wrestling. It's a very simple question, what is the evidence that CBS violated journalistic norms or ethics? Instead of presenting what you purport to be very clear evidence, you've brought up January 6, E Jean Carrol, Jeff Bezos and literally anyone but the people involved in this case.

It's been shown to you and everyone what they did. You will argue to your death they didn't knowingly attempt to suppress a word salad answer because they wanted to present her more favorably. You'll argue to the death that CBS doesn't favor the Democratic party, and its candidates.

There's little reason to engage people who deny the obvious. You refuse to even acknowledge you confused me with another poster with the "malpractice" claim. It's like arguing with global warming denialists. It's just a waste of time.

 

[avenue94]

It's been shown to you and everyone what they did.

What's been shown to me?

There's little reason to engage people who deny the obvious.

The obvious facts that Trump's case was baseless and CBS didn't do anything unethical or out of the norm in this case?

It's like arguing with global warming denialists. It's just a waste of time.

Here is everything you've typed when asked to explain what CBS did that was improper or unethical. You've spent hundreds of words talking about global warming, January 6, Gavin Newsom, sexual assault and everything but the actual matter at hand -- besides claiming with no evidence that CBS engaged in deceptive editing. You're literally wasting time by doing anything but address the facts of this matter.

"Dropping the mask". LMFAO. God, you're really this dumb, aren't you? You genuinely think my anti-Trumpism is an act.

What is like to live in a world as infected with fear as the chambers of your own mind? You go outside and suddenly whip your head because-- you could have swore-- along the corner of your peripheral vision you saw a Nazi in that tree!

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!!! Waaaaaaaaaaaahhhh!!!! That's all I hear when I read your whining. You're such a baby. Nothing but hyperbole, always. It's like when you cried 'Death of the free press!' because the Washington Post rescinded its editorial endorsement of Harris of its own volition, but you caterwauled about Bezos going full Hearst. He didn't. Nobody cared. It didn't change a vote. The great fallout was the WaPo continues to have its foot to the floor printing far-left opinions in its editorial section to this very day. Nothing changed.

The same "anti-democratic views that a Trumper holds"....hmm, is that so? It's just the Trumpers, is it? I guess your too busy not knowing shit, like the parameters of journalistic ethics, to keep up with the news.

Gavin Newsom sues Fox News for $787M in defamation case over Trump call​

I've noticed a peculiar pattern with types like you. You're only loud and obnoxious with your concern about the suppression of "anti-democratic views" when it's people who share your opinion that are suffering consequences. Hm.

"Deceptive editing". I'm doing you a favor since you have the memory of a goldfish.

Yes. Not trying, succeeding. Objectively.

Nobody's grave is being dug but yours. I'm just punishing you for unmistakably confusing me with another poster. I'll repeat this as many times as you allow it.

LMFAO. Who do you think you are kidding, here? Talk about hills to die on. Wowsers.

This reminds me of the E Jean Carroll interview that CNN immediately edited to crop out the part where she described rape as "hot" for their official channel's YouTube upload of the interview. People like you would argue exactly as you have here, "Where's the evidence they were deliberately attempting to whitewash the interview to make their accuser's portrayal more favorable to the audience?"

Do you really think people can't see through you. Are you that dense?

It's been shown to you and everyone what they did. You will argue to your death they didn't knowingly attempt to suppress a word salad answer because they wanted to present her more favorably. You'll argue to the death that CBS doesn't favor the Democratic party, and its candidates.

There's little reason to engage people who deny the obvious. You refuse to even acknowledge you confused me with another poster with the "malpractice" claim. It's like arguing with global warming denialists. It's just a waste of time.

 

[Madmick]

What's been shown to me?

The obvious facts that Trump's case was baseless and CBS didn't do anything unethical or out of the norm in this case?

Here is everything you've typed when asked to explain what CBS did that was improper or unethical. You've spent hundreds of words talking about global warming, January 6, Gavin Newsom, sexual assault and everything but the actual matter at hand -- besides claiming with no evidence that CBS engaged in deceptive editing. You're literally wasting time by doing anything but address the facts of this matter.

Precisely what I'm talking about.

 

[avenue94]

Precisely what I'm talking about.

MadMick: It would be a waste of time to explain how CBS deceptively edited an interview.
Also MadMick: Let me now several hundred words across half a dozen posts talking about anything but that point.

Impressive hackery. Or dementia. Or both I guess.

 

[Madmick]

MadMick: It would be a waste of time to explain how CBS deceptively edited an interview.
Also MadMick: Let me now several hundred words across half a dozen posts talking about anything but that point.

Impressive hackery. Or dementia. Or both I guess.

You're the type to never stop talking even when you have nothing to say, aren't you?

 

[avenue94]

You're the type to never stop talking even when you have nothing to say, aren't you?

Says the guy who can't answer a simple question to save his life and would rather deflect, duck and dice to avoid facing inconvenient truths.

I've already said my piece: Trumps behavior here is plainly anti 1A and the latest in a trend of backsliding press freedoms in the US.

But sure tell me about global warming again, gramps.

 

[ShadowRun]

joe it's free speech, Joe I don't know enough about it. Joe I get attacked everyday

 

[sverre054]

This is a bribe payoff, allowing Paramount to complete its long-delayed buyout from Skydance Media.

 

[Confucamus]

That's what it is. Same with Zuckerberg settling the Trump lawsuit against Facebook.

Okay, great opinion.

So you think any editing of an answer is wrong and should be grounds for a lawsuit? Even though these edits have always been done and even if the party filing the suit was not a part of the interview?

Already went over this.

Again if they wanted to keep viewers from seeing the incoherent answer why would they air that very same answer as the ad to the segment itself? Why was the interviewer's questions also edited? The narrative you're alleging is nonsensical and internally incoherent.

Already went over this.

That's even worse, they avoided airing a tough question and the president's response. It's also an actual departure from journalistic standards as in general when editing the focus is on including as many questions and responses as possible even if it means shaving them down.

No, it isn't worse. You're also continuing to ignore the context that has been pointed out to you.

You don't care because you're a hack who will defend Trump reflexively.

Don't be a child. I've disagreed with Trump on plenty of things and I even said it was time to move on from him after the 2022 midterms.

But others can see that you're unable to cite even a single case that uses this law in the manner Trump did and its because you know there isn't one and that this is indeed unprecedented and flagrantly in violation of the country norms surrounding free speech intended to silence criticism of Trump. Not just this case but the Facebook and Ann Seltzer cases too as well as his strongarming of law firms. All blatant uses of the office of the presidency to attack his perceived enemies.

At best, it's still only your opinion. Nobody believes that you actually care or are offended at this idea at all. You defended the lawfare against Trump, yet you accuse him of doing the same using the flimsiest of examples. You're on here saying only what you are told to say, yet you masquerade as an independent thinker. You invalidate your own pearl clutching about election interference when it comes to Trump or any other non-Democrat when this hypocrisy is exposed. So, we're done here.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Okay, great opinion.


Already went over this.


Already went over this.


No, it isn't worse. You're also continuing to ignore the context that has been pointed out to you.


Don't be a child. I've disagreed with Trump on plenty of things and I even said it was time to move on from him after the 2022 midterms.


At best, it's still only your opinion. Nobody believes that you actually care or are offended at this idea at all. You defended the lawfare against Trump, yet you accuse him of doing the same using the flimsiest of examples. You're on here saying only what you are told to say, yet you masquerade as an independent thinker. You invalidate your own pearl clutching about election interference when it comes to Trump or any other non-Democrat when this hypocrisy is exposed. So, we're done here.

Your argument basically boils down to

This is the level of argumentation you can expect in defense of Trump on this issue. So yeah, you're pretty much done here.

 

[jk7707]

No it was definitely used in a figurative sense but you're annoyed that your gotcha moment was shat on. Let it go already.


Yes, dress up your opinions as ‘facts.’ CBS settled—full stop. And now you’re twisting yourself into knots to frame it as extortion because, for once, the indictment (yes, that’s a synonym for accusation) of election interference is pointing in the other direction. Instead of Trump being the supposed beneficiary, he’s claiming—like he always has—that he’s the target.

And look, I couldn’t care less about the mango molester. But what’s hilarious is watching your side suddenly leap to defend the poor corporations. The same people who were screaming about journalistic integrity and democracy being under siege are now running PR for CBS and Paramount.

Either you believe media manipulation is real, or you don’t. But if this were Fox News settling under a Democratic FCC, you lot would foaming at the mouth circle jerking each other swearing up and down it was a smoking gun.

Im basically saying you guys are full of shit like in my original post. Do you have a counter argument for being full of shit.......shit for brains?

You don't know what the word "figurative" means. Let it go.

CBS settled. Why? I'm not twisting myself into knots to frame anything. I provided you with the exact circumstances of the lawsuit. You've ignored responding to any of them, because you've got no reasonable argument here.

The whataboutism trying to compare the Fox News vs Dominion lawsuit just solidifies that. Was Fox News trying to complete a merger that needed the approval of the FCC? Or did they just put people on air that made completely unsubstantiated claims about the 2020 election for months on end?

But hey, I'm sure the guy who was the executive producer who resigned after 24 years at 60 Minutes specifically because of where this was going, must have just been an angry lib...