[–] cynicaloldfart 0 points 8 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago
Pretty much propaganda SOP. When a situation becomes untenable and the outcome is foreshadowed, salt the feed with results counter to expected agenda to endear viewers and have a story to point to and say "See, we're on your side, continue to watch us". RT is a prime practitioner of this, which isn't surprising as the KGB has been around for decades.
[–] acmbandit01 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
Have fun with it. Sign me up for any CNN panels. I say whatever needs to be said to get past their screening and then have fun with the moderator on the show!!
[–] Paladin_Diver 0 points 8 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago
Or someone at CNN sees the writing on the wall and they are going to go into "sudden impartiality-for-the-sake-of-survivial mode"?
[–] Gigabump 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
You missed the beginning where they say, “we talked to conservative voters to get their opinion on the kavanaugh matter.” Limbaugh talked about this segment for 30 minutes. The ladies had no idea each one of them was a conservative. They thought they all agreed. It was done by CNN to sow more division between parties and amp up civil war. Not what people are thinking below.
[–] praying_manic 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Good contexting. I don't watch CNN and would never have known. Your explanation makes sense. It would be even better if you gave a YouTube link to the full segment (f it exists) so people could see for themselves.
[–] Wagonwheelz ago
That was my first thought. It's to single out conservative women so they can be targeted. Some bomb shell will drop and CNN will be like. "See we cant trust these women." Civil war anyone?
[–] mintmachine 0 points 16 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago
Mockingbirdmedia does not have time or knowledge on how to maintain their biased narrative, when there is so much incoming truth and flak. They are like headless chickens running round. good post OP
[–] quietriot1967 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago
It was nice to see them overwhelm the host, BUT, to me, the ladies contradicted themselves. They all raised their hands saying they believe BK's statement of innocence, but then they talk about it as if it happened in some form or fashion, but was no big deal. It either happened or it didn't happen. I believe it didn't happen. He said he was NOT at the party.
[–] theclarinetist 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I don't see anything wrong with arguing both sides, ie, I see no evidence to believe this happened, but even if it DID happen, it's not a problem because of x, y, z.... However, it should be made clear than any arguments about any alleged event is completely hypothetical. Here it does seem that they are discussing it as though it did happen...
If we assume he will be confirmed (not assured in my mind, but for the sake of argument) and that the dems are just pushing this for #metoo talking points, it is essential from their POV that the narrative be that he DID do it and the repubs just didn't care. For this reason I agree with you that it needs to be made very clear that there is as of now no compelling evidence that this even occurred at all.
[–] Paladin_Diver ago
"the truth has veered away from them."
Huh? The truth drove over them in a 4x4, backed up, drove over them again, got out of the car and slapped some more truth into them, injected them with truth serum, gave them a prescription of truth pills, waterboarded them with 24/7 truth, and they STILL stuck to their Media Matters narrative.
[–] derram 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
https://tweetsave.com/hrtablaze/status/1043169762937692161 :
These are empowered women!!!
/S8gAqJ5Esc"
This has been an automated message.