Sunday, November 13, 2011

See BS: Tiffany Network caught discriminating against Paul, Bachmann

If CBS or any other "major media outlet" alleges that this is a matter of time constraint, then I'm gonna have to call it that I see B.S.

Look, five years ago I was one of sixteen candidates for school board in my home county, and in the final week before the election we all took part (well, one of us declined to participate, but that's another story) in a public candidates forum. A "debate", if you will. And each of us got ample time to state our beliefs and opinions on the various issues. For the very same questions, mind ya. Many people to this day still tell me that they got a kick out of my answer about whether school boards should have the power to tax: I told the audience "Look, if I get on that board and we have that power, there are good people on that board but I'm telling you now: DON'T TRUST US!! Don't trust us with that power to tax you!" But I digress...

The point is, even with a considerable number of individual candidates for office, there is PLENTY of equal time and opportunity to be afforded them by the organization sponsoring the debate... IF that organization is determined to be fair, balanced and impartial, that is.

Didn't Howard Stern once say that the term "Tiffany Network" reminded him too much of the name of a prostitute? If so, then last night CBS was certainly caught in the act of selling out its principles. What few it had left anyway...

During yesterday evening's televised debate of the Republican candidates for President, Ron Paul was given a scant 89 seconds of airtime to answer questions and lay out his claim for the Oval Office. Fellow candidate Michelle Bachmann received similarly reduced on-air exposure. The lion's share of the questions and time for answers went to Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich.

It is now a clearly documented fact that CBS was practicing deliberate discrimination against those candidates that it believes the American citizenry would do just as well to ignore.

CBS political director John Dickerson inadvertently forwarded the Bachmann campaign an e-mail stating that Bachmann would not be given much show time because...

“Okay let’s keep it loose since she’s not going to get many questions and she’s nearly off the charts in the hopes that we can get someone else."
CBS later said that they were trying to be "realistic" since Bachmann is "polling" about 4% nationally.

And this blogger says: that don't don't hunt. A study released last month by University of Minnesota notes that Ron Paul, though polling a strong third or fourth nationally, has been given the least amount of debate time during every televised forum.

Now if this ain't intentional bias and discrimination on the part of a major television news outlet, then... what is it? How can anyone defend CBS - and indeed, most of the more corporate-run press in this country - as being an objective and impartial observer of this country and this world?

Some are probably reading this and no doubt determined to tell me "Chris, CBS is a multi-billion dollar corporation and you're just a guy with a blog: what the hell do you think you can do about it?"

True, I don't have CBS's viewing numbers.

But I can document that network's abuse of journalistic ethics. Which in my opinion, this is an example of.

And there are a lot of others out there in the ether of the Intertubes who are likewise documenting it.

Meanwhile, networks like CBS keep losing viewers, 'cuz there are a lot of folks out there who are getting sick and tired of seeing B.S. too.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

CBS is slighting the two because they can't even outpoll someone accused of boorish sexual behavior and a guy that can't put two words together. Maybe that's not "fair", but it's hardly unusual.

The idea that you are some shining light of journalism is laughable. You just pass on various blog "news" you read as fact .... without regard to validity. Being a journalist requires leaving your house.

This post soon to be deleted .... as usual.

Chris Knight said...

Well Richard, if there is anyone who knows something about boorish sexual behavior, it would probably be you.

Anonymous said...

Not surprised that its Richard. He is one to talk about not being a journalist. More like a urinalist is what he always was.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

See BS: Tiffany Network caught discriminating against Paul, Bachmann

If CBS or any other "major media outlet" alleges that this is a matter of time constraint, then I'm gonna have to call it that I see B.S.

Look, five years ago I was one of sixteen candidates for school board in my home county, and in the final week before the election we all took part (well, one of us declined to participate, but that's another story) in a public candidates forum. A "debate", if you will. And each of us got ample time to state our beliefs and opinions on the various issues. For the very same questions, mind ya. Many people to this day still tell me that they got a kick out of my answer about whether school boards should have the power to tax: I told the audience "Look, if I get on that board and we have that power, there are good people on that board but I'm telling you now: DON'T TRUST US!! Don't trust us with that power to tax you!" But I digress...

The point is, even with a considerable number of individual candidates for office, there is PLENTY of equal time and opportunity to be afforded them by the organization sponsoring the debate... IF that organization is determined to be fair, balanced and impartial, that is.

Didn't Howard Stern once say that the term "Tiffany Network" reminded him too much of the name of a prostitute? If so, then last night CBS was certainly caught in the act of selling out its principles. What few it had left anyway...

During yesterday evening's televised debate of the Republican candidates for President, Ron Paul was given a scant 89 seconds of airtime to answer questions and lay out his claim for the Oval Office. Fellow candidate Michelle Bachmann received similarly reduced on-air exposure. The lion's share of the questions and time for answers went to Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich.

It is now a clearly documented fact that CBS was practicing deliberate discrimination against those candidates that it believes the American citizenry would do just as well to ignore.

CBS political director John Dickerson inadvertently forwarded the Bachmann campaign an e-mail stating that Bachmann would not be given much show time because...

“Okay let’s keep it loose since she’s not going to get many questions and she’s nearly off the charts in the hopes that we can get someone else."
CBS later said that they were trying to be "realistic" since Bachmann is "polling" about 4% nationally.

And this blogger says: that don't don't hunt. A study released last month by University of Minnesota notes that Ron Paul, though polling a strong third or fourth nationally, has been given the least amount of debate time during every televised forum.

Now if this ain't intentional bias and discrimination on the part of a major television news outlet, then... what is it? How can anyone defend CBS - and indeed, most of the more corporate-run press in this country - as being an objective and impartial observer of this country and this world?

Some are probably reading this and no doubt determined to tell me "Chris, CBS is a multi-billion dollar corporation and you're just a guy with a blog: what the hell do you think you can do about it?"

True, I don't have CBS's viewing numbers.

But I can document that network's abuse of journalistic ethics. Which in my opinion, this is an example of.

And there are a lot of others out there in the ether of the Intertubes who are likewise documenting it.

Meanwhile, networks like CBS keep losing viewers, 'cuz there are a lot of folks out there who are getting sick and tired of seeing B.S. too.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

CBS is slighting the two because they can't even outpoll someone accused of boorish sexual behavior and a guy that can't put two words together. Maybe that's not "fair", but it's hardly unusual.

The idea that you are some shining light of journalism is laughable. You just pass on various blog "news" you read as fact .... without regard to validity. Being a journalist requires leaving your house.

This post soon to be deleted .... as usual.

Chris Knight said...

Well Richard, if there is anyone who knows something about boorish sexual behavior, it would probably be you.

Anonymous said...

Not surprised that its Richard. He is one to talk about not being a journalist. More like a urinalist is what he always was.