Posted on

CNN Hiring Practices Called Into Question?

During the week of February 4th, many proponents of fairness in the media felt shock after seeing the most recent hire at CNN. Who was this new recruit? Josh Campbell, the FBI agent who publicly authored a  NY Times opinion piece against Trump. In response to the personnel move, Donald Trump Jr tweeted, “You would think their stable is full in the hate on Trump department. Ahh, who am I kidding? It’s CNN of course there’s more room.”

What did Trump Jr mean?

One might think that Don Jr was referring to the hosts. Perhaps Jake Tapper, a former writer for a far left publication? Maybe Chris Cuomo, the son and brother of pillars of the democratic party? Or could it be Jim Sciutto, a former Obama official, who comes with former Obama officials as sources? These three are just a taste of the issue with hosts but this is not the travesty Don was referencing.

Typical CNN Panel

Another theory would be Don Jr was referring to the stable of pundits who appear on panels. It is quite common to find entire panels of anti-Trump perspectives. Many of the experts at CNN are direct hires from the Clinton/Obama machine. ‘HIres,’ such as regulars, Gloria Borger and David Axelrod or even the contributors like Neera Tanden, John Podesta and Robby Mook or even the countless guests who easily outnumber supporters of Trump 5-1. (With the ‘1’ being self-hating republican Anna Navarro)

The true problem Don Jr saw was that CNN is boldly and irreverently hiring symbols of the resistance. The pattern is too much to ignore.

Trump Hater Unemployment At All-Time Low
  • After mounting a campaign to be President in the state of Utah, with the sole purpose of thwarting the Trump presidency, Evan McMullin was hired as  consultant at CNN.
  • When reporter April Ryan engaged in a public fight with the President and became a hero of the resistance she found herself  working at CNN a day later.
  • After the media pretended Preet Bahara was a hero for getting replaced by the Trump administration, Preet got a paycheck from CNN.
  • Once James Clapper broke tradition and called Trump a threat to democracy he found that he earned a part-time gig at CNN.

The amount of time between the acts of #resistance and the hiring is troubling. One might ask if Josh Campbell was promised a job in return for his op-ed.

The bias at CNN is quantifiable if anyone cared to look. The only remaining question is why Sally Yates did not cash in, did she have a better offer at MSNBC?

 

 

Share:
Posted on

The Anatomy of a CNN Headline

Vague Innuendo

Let us examine the game CNN plays with the minds of their audience.

SOURCES: RUSSIANS DISCUSSED POTENTIALLY “DEROGATORY” INFORMATION ABOUT TRUMP & ASSOCIATES DURING CAMPAIGN

CNN’s hope is that people in the doctor’s office look up from their magazines at the TV and see “Russia” and “Trump” in the same headline. This reinforces the Trump-Russia tale they’ve been peddling uninterrupted for months. For those at home, who actually watch the network, the anchors will jabber on for hours adding no other information outside the purposefully vague headline.

My theory, like the Deceleration of Independence, is self-evident. The entirety of the story derives from one (confirmed) source who cherry picked a factoid in which key points are intentionally withheld by the source, so as not to diminish the Trump-Russia narrative. But CNN is adept at laundering  any anti-trump dribble into A-block news. Question time:

  1. Was this type of spy chatter common in the past as well? The fact that this is an actual story implies that this is  a new phenomenon for Donald J. Trump. Isn’t this what Russian spies have always done?
  2. What is this “derogatory information?” What would motivate a source to leave out this key fact which is the crux of the issue?
  3. “Russians” Can you be more specific? American spies intercept boatloads of Russian spy communications. Is this from some low-level nobody on Facebook or a (i.e.) senior FSB official, they must know.
  4. “Discussed?” If they intercepted the conversation, tell us what they were saying. Was it a plan? Why do we get 1/10th of a story?
  5. “Potentially” This is a qualifier denoting the whole story is quite possibly  bogus. The most crucial word in the headline.

Regardless, this story is smoke not fire and will dissipate as such. No one will follow it up because no one cares, it’s as impactful as the golf channel to an eight year old on the way to his cartoons.

For more on CNN’s  “sources” trick see here.

Share: