CNN btfo by former governor Sununu.

I wouldn't call it neutral. He flat out called CNN and the Washington Post unreliable news agencies and therefore did not believe the story they reported. I understand his desire to not comment on negative aspects of the story that might overshadow John McCain's legacy, but he could have refused to comment without plainly insulting the program he was appearing on. Once you go there, it's pretty hard to expect the interviewer to remain completely cordial. It was hilarious watching her try to contain her anger though.

I guess, but he initially called the Washington Post (not CNN) report unreliable, but then she Cut him off, saying they have the same story.

If I'm not mistaken, at the time, it was an "anonymous source from within the white house". Not sure if it has since been proven or supported by a more reliable source.

As soon as she brought up the story, he probably knew where the interview was going, and when she cut him off, probably knew she was going to press him on the issue.

I am also not sure if CNN and wash post are apart of the same company
 
I guess, but he initially called the Washington Post (not CNN) report unreliable, but then she Cut him off, saying they have the same story.

If I'm not mistaken, at the time, it was an "anonymous source from within the white house". Not sure if it has since been proven or supported by a more reliable source.

As soon as she brought up the story, he probably knew where the interview was going, and when she cut him off, probably knew she was going to press him on the issue.

I am also not sure if CNN and wash post are apart of the same company

"Experts say..."
"According to scientists..."
"An anonymous source states..."
"A rock solid source says..."


Many times, people who are willing to brand different types of thinking as conspiracy theories are completely fine with above "sources".
 
"Experts say..."
"According to scientists..."
"An anonymous source states..."
"A rock solid source says..."


Many times, people who are willing to brand different types of thinking as conspiracy theories are completely fine with above "sources".

Yea, I am not sure if it was ever proven. I just listened to it again, and her questions are "Do you think Trump WOULD do something like that?" , "What if the report WERE true?" and then she looks at him like it is a fact? NO BITCH you just listen to what you asked lol.

Then he says it is hypothetical, and then she says, no, it is our reporting, it is a "truism".

"rock solid sources within the white house" with no names, no physical evidence lol.

I love the way she says "JUST TO BE CLEAR... WE DON'T SEE IT AS A GAME" as firmly as she can, and he just goes "..ehh" with a slight chuckle. You can see her eyes twitch and bulge out a little bit, as she tries to find her words.
 
Go do some research on your own for a change. That's what non-trolls do before asking such questions. Anyone on social media the past 15 years can be your source.

I'm asking you to back up your claim is all.

Can you point to one incident that you claimed?
 
Yea, I am not sure if it was ever proven. I just listened to it again, and her questions are "Do you think Trump WOULD do something like that?" , "What if the report WERE true?" and then she looks at him like it is a fact? NO BITCH you just listen to what you asked lol.

Then he says it is hypothetical, and then she says, no, it is our reporting, it is a "truism".

"rock solid sources within the white house" with no names, no physical evidence lol.

I love the way she says "JUST TO BE CLEAR... WE DON'T SEE IT AS A GAME" as firmly as she can, and he just goes "..ehh" with a slight chuckle. You can see her eyes twitch and bulge out a little bit, as she tries to find her words.

Don't get me wrong, she came across pretty poorly in the exchange. She should have had a better and more professional rebuttal to his claim that they are not trustworthy, and then moved on to another topic instead of pushing the same issue. I laughed when he laughed at her too. I don't really have any issue with any of it, he is allowed to speak his mind and say what he wants. I just don't think he is innocent in this exchange.
 
Don't get me wrong, she came across pretty poorly in the exchange. She should have had a better and more professional rebuttal to his claim that they are not trustworthy, and then moved on to another topic instead of pushing the same issue. I laughed when he laughed at her too. I don't really have any issue with any of it, he is allowed to speak his mind and say what he wants. I just don't think he is innocent in this exchange.

He probably even went in there knowing she was going to grill him on that specific issue too. He had those responses already practiced or at least in mind, it seemed.
 
He probably even went in there knowing she was going to grill him on that specific issue too. He had those responses already practiced or at least in mind, it seemed.

He's a smart guy who served three terms as a governor. I'm sure he has enough media experience to know what to expect and how to handle it. I am always surprised when people in the media do not seem to handle situations like this well, I mean it is their entire job to have the right words at the right time. I think a big part of the problem with the media is that emotion sells, so anchors tend to be more emotional now than in the past. But along with more emotion comes less stoicism and self control.
 
Did Rachel Maddow lose weight?
th
 
CNN is a tabloid for trailer trash. No surprise here that they don't care how their employees look. You'll notice Fox always has their female employees looking pristine. The male colleagues as well will be in a nice suit etc,

She used to be on Fox... Looked exactly the same. Your argument is invalid
 
I didn't see it that way at all. She asked a question that was not rude, and he said he did not believe their reporting, so did not want to answer.

The first rude moment was when he said he thought they were untrustworthy reporters.

The majority of Americans feel that way about CNN.
 
When he said the cleavage and she nearly lost it was sooooo damn funny
 
I wouldn't call it neutral. He flat out called CNN and the Washington Post unreliable news agencies and therefore did not believe the story they reported. I understand his desire to not comment on negative aspects of the story that might overshadow John McCain's legacy, but he could have refused to comment without plainly insulting the program he was appearing on. Once you go there, it's pretty hard to expect the interviewer to remain completely cordial. It was hilarious watching her try to contain her anger though.
eh, there was obviously a particular answer she was fishing for. Pretty pathetic really.
 
eh, there was obviously a particular answer she was fishing for. Pretty pathetic really.

I'm not defending the woman so much as I'm saying that the former Governor took the first cheap shot in the interview. She may be a hacky reporter, but he also directly insulted her network right to her face on air.
 
I'm not defending the woman so much as I'm saying that the former Governor took the first cheap shot in the interview. She may be a hacky reporter, but he also directly insulted her network right to her face on air.
Good. More people should call out mainstream media for what they are.
 
Back
Top