Fuming Bernie supporters: Why is CNN deleting our comments?

[Jesus Malverde]

Seeing their comments repeatedly deleted by CNN, Bernie Sanders supporters are hopping mad today.

Already feeling the news network’s coverage had become rabidly pro-Hillary in the aftermath of last night’s debate, Facebook users leaving reactions on CNN’s page are now continually re-posting them, knowing they will be quickly removed. There are hundreds in a seeming battle with the network, with no explanation as to why.

Some users and messages appear to be specifically targeted, especially those accusing CNN of having conflicts of interest that make it naturally inclined to back Hillary.

In particular, they’re citing last night’s initial Facebook poll data showing Bernie had won the debate handily. They are claiming the network is now burying that information in today’s coverage.

http://mediaequalizer.com/brian-maloney/2015/10/fuming-bernie-supporters-why-is-cnn-deleting-our-comments

[billhicks76]

1. With Clinton You Get A Corrupt Manipulator Cherry Picked By The Biggest Corporations

[cantbeserious]

8. ^^^ This ^^^

eom

[Metric System]

2. They swarm like bees.

[sulphurdunn]

3. Interesting simile.

Who's they?

[99Forever]

14. You know, "they."

Those pesky Americans that think "they" should have a voice in our democracy. The little people with the audacity to not want to stand by and have a coronation of "The Corporate Chosen One" shoved down their throats.

Don't "they" know it's HER turn?

[sulphurdunn]

26. Oh, yea

those people: The great unwashed. Sometimes they forget their place in the ruling narrative.

[merrily]

4. Hello? The network did not become pro-Hillary in the aftermath of the debate. The pre and post game

analysis was done by a team of three outsiders, one of whom was Paul Begala, who runs a Hillary PAC, and another of whom was Donna Brazile, co-chair of the DNC, who certainly was not going to allow a negative comment about Hillary. Exactly how fair and balanced was that?

People think reporting about a candidate's being investigated by the FBI, with an aide taking the Fifth, is anti-Hillary bias. That is typical of the "Clintons are victims of the media and of Republicans" mentality the Clintons and their supporters have nurtured since at least Gennifer Flowers in 1991.

[djean111]

6. I read somewhere, yesterday, that some Hillary supporters believe that the only reason

people support Bernie is not because of the issues, but merely because they "hate Hillary".
That seems to be the mantra - if you do not support Hillary, you hate her or you hate women, or whatever. It is bizarre.

[merrily]

11. Projection. Honi soit qui mal y pense.

[LWolf]

7. When I got home from work last night,

did all of the other evening chores waiting, and finally flopped down and turned on the tv it was on CNN, which is pretty funny.

Funny because I never watch tv news, didn't know what channel to find it on Tuesday night, and searched frantically, thinking the debate would start without me. Happily, I found it, and was there for it all, because they didn't actually get down to debating for a half hour or so.

So I look up, and there's a big red banner saying something about the Democratic debate at the bottom of the screen, and some guys in boxes talking. I didn't get the boxes. But one of the guys is saying, "I think we really might have missed something. We thought Hillary Clinton won this debate easily, but this morning we're finding out that Sanders got over $1 million in small donations since the debate and...." And of course, there was a guy arguing with him.

Before I switched the channel, I was thinking, "What is that all about? CNN suddenly wants some transparency, or? What's the agenda?"

[merrily]

10. The agenda is to take the country further right. Always. Hopefully, without making the agends so

blatantly obvious that Mr. and Ms. Six Pack can spot it. Because if the agenda is THAT obvious, it might fail. I mean, would America have gone along with the Iraq invasion so docilely if they had seen the puppet strings on Tim Russert and the dollar signs in his eyes, as he lent the now evaporated cred of MTP to Buscho?

[LWolf]

13. Yes.

I can't really speak with any authority about Russert, etc., since I turned off the MSM as a source of anything back in '01.

But that was because I'd long recognized the propagandizing, and finally decided to shut my door on it.

[merrily]

23. I forgot to mention:

At least one study has shown that people believe most what they read or hear first--and get this: a later retraction or correction serves only to reinforce the original impression. Plus, the most people were likely to tune in and focus on what was being said about the debates was, of course, immediately before and after the debates, when they got to hear CNN's biased panel extolling Hillary's debate skills beforehand and declaring her the winner immediately afterward.

If the findings of that study were correct, then saying the next day, "Gee, we may have been wrong," only serves to reinforce "Hillary won hands down."

During the first couple of years Obama was in office, I noticed how many times a monthly report came out, only to be corrected a few days later with a less optimistic one. That violates my diner rule. http://www.democraticunderground.com/128037667

But, your government would never do a thing like that to mess with you mind.

[demwing]

15. I don't think it's a pull to the right, but a grab from the top

The agenda is to grab ALL the wealth, replace governments and the rule of law with corporate boards and bylaws, and to reduce citizens to consumers.

That's what Bush the Elder meant by the term "new world order." It's not about multi-culturalism, it's about multi-nationalism.

It's about to happen, and this may be our last opportunity to change the trajectory of history.

[merrily]

17. I think the agenda you described is, and has long been, a rightist agenda. We don't disagree; we

are just using different names for the same phenomenon.

There is precious little wealth left for the .1% of the 1% to grab, but they are indeed bound and determined to get it and keep it. Those who are "merely" comfortable today won't be in 20 or 30 years, and neither will their offspring. I do feel confident, however, that there will always be enough bread and circus to avoid a revolution of the masses, so Tsar Nicholas's death shall not have been in vain.

[demwing]

19. Agreed. In the end, labels have little meaning

Right v Left or Haves v Have Nots, it's the same evil game. I guess my real point is that it's dangerous to assume that a Democrat is, by default, opposed to the oligarchy.

[merrily]

22. Funny you should put it that way. Someone recently posted in your Populist Group about meaningless

political terms. http://www.democraticunderground.com/127710158http://www.democraticunderground.com/127710158

Pay her no mind, though. She's always ranting about something or other.

[demwing]

25. It's her group too...

I hope someone knows that

[Agschmid]

5. Conspiracy everywhere...

[merrily]

12. So, as a true Bernie supporter, you were fine with the analysis team

CNN selected, as described in Reply 4?

Please see also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/127710043

[Agschmid]

16. I couldn't personally care less.

Luckily I don't vote based on other peoples analysis.

The Clintons have a long history in American politics you'd be hard pressed someone who hasn't supported them at some point in their combined political history.

And primaries are very partisan.

[merrily]

18. Mercifully, elections are not all about you and only you.You may not vote based on pre and post

debate analysis, but millions do. Did you find CNN's selection of that three person team objective or not?

The Clintons have a long history in American politics you'd be hard pressed someone who hasn't supported them at some point in their combined political history.

Oh, please. Plenty of people have not supported them at any point in their history. Passing that, there is a difference between someone who has supported Bill at some point in history and someone who currently runs a Hillary PAC as one person of a three person an. Massive false equivalency on your part!

And primaries are very partisan.

Duh, but selection of a three person team to give supposedly objective analysis on a news network should not be so blatantly unfair to four out of five candidates and so biased in favor of only one of the five.

For a Bernie supporter, you sure have a lot of spurious arguments to make in support of a three person group bound to be biased against Bernie.

[Agschmid]

24. Thanks for giving me the breakdown of what I wrote.

Clearly I am an idiot and had no idea what the words I was typing meant.

[Vinca]

9. Of course, it's CNN.

Most of their coverage was Trump's response to the debate anyway.

[gregcrawford]

20. Simple answer:

CNN is grotesquely corrupt, incredibly incompetent, and pitifully dependent on pointless special effects calculated to induce severe AD/OS (Attention Deficit/ Oh, Shiny!) in those foolish enough to watch CNN on a regular basis. Like Pox News, CNN rots your brain.

[SmittynMo]

21. I get it

It's Corporate Media's (CM) way of brainwashing us. They are bought and paid for and control what we hear and see. And it appears that CM is scared shitless of this guy. I think the words "democratic socialist" is the key here. Instead of making an accurate true story out of this, which is phenomenal in itself, they totally ignore it, or give it a 5 second story in a 1 hour show.

CM and SPAC's are the beginning of the oligarchy. See what the results are? Is this what America wants? An oligarchy that controls everything?

It use to be called main stream media(MSM). Now it's corporate media(CM). It's should to be called OLIGARCHY MEDIA(OM).
Maybe they can change their station names of OM1, OM2, OM3, etc. Or perhaps OM-CNN, OM-FAUX? Or maybe Oligarchy news?

What the hell happened to "The land of the FREE?"

It's soon to be gone unless we get the corrupt money out of politics and the news.