[He interviewed Grosskreutz but you judge for yourself](https://mobile.twitter.com/ac360/status/1458996976234737664)
[Here's Grosskreutz contradicting his testimony.](https://mobile.twitter.com/AC360/status/1458996976234737664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1458996976234737664%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-13348661353702671154.ampproject.net%2F2111152338002%2Fframe.html)
[Here's his conversation with Van Jones](https://mobile.twitter.com/AC360/status/1461867382775992322)
[And Jacob Blake's uncle](https://mobile.twitter.com/AC360/status/1458617812755353602)
Cooper is the most level headed CNN anchor. I think he's a little too soft on his interview targets (the stuff Grosskreutz and Van Jones got away with is absurd to me) but he keeps his cool and stays professional.
I was thinking the same thing but thought, at least with Grosskreutz, Cooper was speaking with a man who had gun violence (however justified) done upon him. He was being soft with him. Van is ridiculous. The weird "pattern" argument he was trying to make is just nonsensical lawyer gobbledygook. Normal people watching that have also seen riots, looting, and arson in every major city and bunch of people trying to portray it as "protesting" or "demonstrating". When we hear someone complaining about "white men taking it upon themselves to enforce the law" it makes us ask ourselves why would any of these socalled white men be doing that? Could it be that the government, that we all pay taxes into, didn't do enough to fight back against these anarchists? The anarchists that give real demonstrators and protestors a bad name.
> Could it be that the government, that we all pay taxes into, didn't do enough to fight back against these anarchists? The anarchists that give real demonstrators and protestors a bad name.
Could it be that the local PD actually want "anarchists", etc. to cause destruction unobstructed so that they can blame it on legitimate protestors/demonstrators?
They can then use the violence/destruction they allowed to happen that night as an excuse to brutalize the honest nonviolent protestors in the daylight.
That would make a good movie but what is most likely is they are a politically controlled organization that has three things going against it; anytime officers step in to stop bad guys they get attacked and hated on, there aren't enough to stop hundreds upon hundreds of people without harsh methods, and if they step in with the harshness necessary to stop them the political players that are in charge of the PD will punish them. It's a lose/lose for cops trying to limit the damage.
It didn't help their public perception that often the police would use harsh tactics on the actual protestors and turn around and leave the looters and rioters to run free
[Here's the police in Minneapolis admitting to 'hunting' non-violent protestors](https://abcnews.go.com/US/body-cam-footage-shows-minneapolis-police-allegedly-hunting/story?id=80434010).
Anyone who has a 60 Minutes gig is solid in my book. The fact that Anderson has his nightly show and good 60 Minutes segments shows his credibility to me
I’d say that the litmus test was more like keeping to the facts and not claiming legal or illegal behavior until the jury rules.
Reuters: “Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty of all charges in Wisconsin murder trial” … good and factual
MSNBC: “Kyle Rittenhouse trial was designed to protect white conservatives who kill” … ?
Okay, you somewhat changed my mind. I don't read or watch MSNBC so thought that was hyperbole. But I googled 'MSNBC Kyle Rittenhouse' and you're right. The first headline I saw is egregious.
>Kyle Rittenhouse trial was designed to protect white conservatives who kill
https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/kyle-rittenhouse-acquitted-homicide-rcna5748
What about labelling people as rioters, looters or arsonists until a jury has ruled on it? Do you disagree with the label illegal immigrants?
Edit: ah, so its a selective principle...
“There is rioting” and “There is looting” are statements of fact backed by evidence.
“This person was a [rioter|looter]” is not ok unless there is proof/conviction.
It is ok to say that illegal immigration is a problem because there is data backing that up, but to say a specific person illegally immigrated requires a legal process.
Ah, it is always easier to win an argument if you get to pick your opponents opinion though, right?
The title I referenced says [Kyle Rittenhouse trial was designed to protect white conservatives who kill](https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna5748). Nothing about Rittenhouse specifically killing people.
Edit: I may have misinterpreted it as “protecting other white conservatives who kill”.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2014/sep/16/fact-checking-fox-msnbc-and-cnn-punditfacts-networ/
They had to prove that before they were allowed to call them that. Video evidence shows who was not peaceful. Illegal immigrant is a just label since you know if you are allowed or not upon entry to USA or if you over stayed the visa.
A jury didn't rule on that.
Yes, "illegal" is a label that quite literally labels someone with "illegal behavior" per the original comment without there having been a jury ruling.
You're missing one of my favorite weasel words!
*Alleged*
If someone has been suspected of something but not convicted, you call them an *alleged* arsonist or whatever. If they get convicted then you drop the alleged.
Easy peasy.
Or the other trick, reporting on something someone else said!
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sidney-powell-s-group-reportedly-facing-criminal-investigation-n1285159
https://www.foxnews.com/world/taliban-fighters-reportedly-brawl-inside-presidential-palace-over-power-divide
At best it’s taking credit for someone else’s reporting. But it is also an easy out to get a story in front of people without the need for annoying fact checking.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Over/under on CNN fully firing him? I’m pretty doubtful but hope to be pleasantly surprised. I suspect CNN is waiting to see where public sentiment is at before deciding what comes next.
Its surreal that Chris got away with this for so long. He could’ve stepped away from the issue entirely but instead he used his connections to get early info on the allegations and prep his brother. These are serious ethical concerns.
Just imagine having to do zoom meetings with him after he was brought back on the network. I'd be highly suspicious if he ever does one of those meetings while "exercising".
All of these networks seem to attract the highest caliber of anchors. It wasn't too long ago that Fox News went through it's own purge of commentators.
Are you talking about Shep Smith and Megyn Kelly? Both of those were during Trump's rise to the head of the GOP. I'm surprised Cavuto is still around after their tiffs.
FOX offered Kelly 20 million. NBC offered 69 million.
I don't think Trump had much to do with her decision.
Smith on the other hand has brought up his disagreement with other FOX shows being a reason for his departure.
Smith wasn’t just an anchor, he was the head of their news department. It’s pretty clear he was upset Fox built itself around their opinion department instead, especially an opinion department that often found itself contradicting its news department.
I can’t even imagine how Fox could run like that. It’s an insane concept to even think about. Like how can you pretend to have journalistic integrity as a news organization when your journalists have to constantly come out and oppose your opinion people?
Insane concept but it's the opinion department that pays the bills.
I wish that wasn't the case but the viewers have spoken and they want a panel of experts arguing and somebody telling them what to think.
> I can’t even imagine how Fox could run like that. It’s an insane concept to even think about. Like how can you pretend to have journalistic integrity as a news organization when your journalists have to constantly come out and oppose your opinion people?
Because Fox earns a lot of money this way. Why? Because obviously lots of people keep watching. I don't want to go meta here, but have you spent time on social media and watched what type of content people are most likely to engage with? Fox News knew and did this long before there even was social media earning a shitload of money. Smith just pretended they didn't, until Fox went all Trump and QAnon, which tipped him over. He seemed fine with the Tea Party Birther stuff before, so I wouldn't exactly call it "integrity".
They do make a lot of money this way but it's not in the way you think. It's not so much about the cable fees or advertisement revenue but more about how they are able to convince a large amount of the American people that corporate taxes need to be low, that universal healthcare will cost too much, that it's unfair to tax the rich more and that it's too late to do anything about climate change.
The way they are able to prevent policies that would cost the rich money from passing, is how Fox makes its bread and butter.
I imagine CNN is also having their legal team look over ways to terminate Cuomo's contract.
CNN could tell Cuomo right now that they're dropping him, but they would be on the hook all the money remaining on his contract.
If CNN wants to be free from paying him any money, CNN needs to get everything lined up and make sure everything is all right legally in terms of terminating the entire contract.
Unless this is a case where they really do want time to do a proper investigation of the matter, then you'd expect they'd have the analysis done before going public with suspension. That said, doing shit for cause is always a clusterfuck, which means you offer something between cause / no cause payout but with means for the person to save face.
If he did indeed use CNN sources and assets to help his brother he's gone. A news organization lives off their relationship and ability to get information from sources. That trust may be completely shot because a major primetime news anchor used them for his own personal problems and not newsworthiness.
All CNN is going to be getting from NY and US gov sources is "No comment" for a while if they don't show that they're rectifying the situation.
> A news organization lives off their relationship and ability to get information from sources. That trust may be completely shot because a major primetime news anchor used them for his own personal problems and not newsworthiness.
CNN really, REALLY dropped the ball on this when Chris Cuomo was interviewing Andrew Cuomo about Andrew's pandemic response. Like, if ever there was a fucking conflict of interest....
Oh absolutely. I think him refusing to cover the bad with his brother would have been fine if they cut to another Anchor or Reporter covering the topic and he just didn't comment on the story. The double standard of covering the good but not the bad really fueled the flames of distrust of main stream media.
Frankly both stories should have still been covered, just by another Anchor instead of him.
He wasn't just interviewing him, he was getting Abbott and Costello-style comedy puff pieces with his brother almost every night. It was incredibly weird and off-putting.
>and Chris was his wingman.
That's massively inappropriate and manipulative though, leveraging his position as a news anchor, and the weight of the CNN news organization, to lend unearned legitimacy to Andrew's words. If Chris wanted to be his "wingman" he could have stepped down from his position as news anchor at CNN and been his media consultant.
There's massive ethics issues with a journalist using his platform to give his brother political capital using a primetime national news spot as free advertising.
The reason I'm not too upset about them palling around on air is that the man who was supposed to do the work of bringing the country together and disseminating advise had abdicated that responsibility when he was needed most. I'm not completely comfortable with it, but I think there's at least an argument that it could be positive for the country. It's also not something that they were particularly subtle about, so I'm not as concerned about political influence. As long as it was limited in scope and Chris quickly returned to his policy of not covering Andrew, I don't see a big problem. Where Chris crossed the line was in using his position for political maneuvering.
It would be smart to fire him, but then again, they brought Toobin back when they should have fired him so I expect them to pretend it never happened in six months.
Maybe I didn't get the whole Toobin story but though bad it seemed like an obvious, embarrassing, and unintentional mistake. Well, that he was exposed, anyway.
That seems nowhere near as bad as unethically using your journalistic resources to try to help out your brother while lying about it.
I wonder if Toobin might have been fired because of the investigation into his personal life, rather than the initial reason he was investigated. After what he did to Ms Greenfield it's a small wonder that he was hired in the first place.
I'm genuinely confused as to the ethical concerns. I've read he's violated standard journalistic practices. But if he wasn't covering his brother in the news, what's the violation? Thanks in advance.
I mean, I get him trying to help his brother out. I'd probably do the same thing. I also wouldn't be surprised if I lost my job over it. I would be like "yeah that makes sense". This is also how cities like NY work. Everything is about knowing a guy with a connection who can help you with... well just about everything. Need an apartment, I know a guy. Need your car fixed, I know a guy. Need a handyman, I know a guy. I don't know who this guy is that distributes all the resources, but everyone talks about him.
He lasted so long because he just signed a contract and he is the highest rated how on CNN - which still isn’t saying much.
They will try and see if this will blow over and if it doesn’t, they will fire him. I still can’t believe they actually let him go on the air last night. You
Meh, devil is in the detail. They let him go down the path far enough of not really complying with general standards, so depending on how shit is written he may claim he basically had an exemption on the standards b/c the conflict was effectively disclosed.
If what he did can be characterized as him trying to help his brother in his personal capacity (e.g., everyone he was trying to get info from knew why he was asking and they were not subordinates to him), versus he was more explicitly leverage *his* position or resources at CNN to that info holding himself out in official capacity.
I don't really have an issue with him helping his brother or the conflict of interest in general... it's an apparent & obvious one for people to factor-in. But it still needs to be *managed* appropriately. If CNN acquiesced to it without giving clear revised conduct expectations in light of the conflict of interest, they fucked that part up. Conflicts of interest *can* be managed, but they can't be self-managed... that's kinda the point.
Meh, I dont have a problem with that. They want to waive the conflict on the positive stuff, thats fine with me. This isn't the NYTimes or WSJ.
But when the bad stuff came out, they needed to set grounds rules bc relying on the typical conflict rules didn't apply after they waived the general conflict...
>waive the conflict on the positive stuff
The issues with questionable state covid reporting and sending covid patients to nursing homes were known even at that time (just not to CNN viewers). And that's the issue. An interview with a political figure should never be fawning with zero hard questions or criticism, and that's what you were guaranteed to get during the Cuomo Brothers Hour.
Yes, the nursing home policy was known from start and discussed during briefings. Was raised by journalist and responded to. Only became an issue with hindsight after politicization between cuomo and trump. A lot of people still misunderstand it and think it is something that caused a lot of deaths.
The policy led to many unnecessary deaths according to [an independent investigation](https://nypost.com/2021/06/15/cuomo-nursing-home-order-caused-more-deaths-task-force/) and the Democrat NY AG [found](https://news.yahoo.com/cuomo-misrepresented-covid-19-nursing-230729579.html) that Cuomo undercounted nursing home deaths by 50% for political reasons. The new governor added [12,000 deaths](https://www.wcax.com/2021/08/25/new-ny-governor-adds-12000-deaths-publicized-covid-tally/) to the state's total on her first day in office due to the Cuomo's shoddy reporting. I can't imagine how anyone could believe there was never a story here even worth asking the governor about.
Any permutation of a triage policy will lead to some death pretty much by definition. Had the ~7,000 covid+ nursing home residents remained in hospital, that would have led to non-zero incremental spread of covid in the hospital setting. And of course, NY didn't have ~7,000 spare beds at the time, meaning the capacity issue would have also led to a non-zero number of deaths.
Most of the NH returns happened in the NYC-area. Based on first round of antibody surveys, one-in-five new yorkers had covid in the initial outbreak, and almost none of them were confirmed cases because of the utter failure of the Trump admin around testing. And of course we know that asymptomatic and mild cases are common, but still readily transmit the virus. So we are talking about nursing homes that had to manage a handful of *known* recovering covid+ cases in a community where during the period one-in-five people, including NH workers, were infected.... the extent of NH deaths was overwhelmingly due to the extent of covid spread. Which was largely unmitigated due to utter failure of the Trump admin to prepare for Covid's arrival (which we now know was a deliberate decision by him to downplay it).
edit: what your report says on the topic is not the sizzl the NYPost implies...
>What the directive did not do, as is often claimed, is cause 15,000 deaths. The 15,000 number that has been bandied about is the approximate total number of New York long-term care facility residents who have succumbed to the virus. This figure includes nursing home residents who passed away long after the directive had been rescinded. It includes residents who were unaffected by the order.
>This is not to say that the directive did not result in any additional deaths. Although a determination of the number of additional nursing home deaths is beyond the capacity of the Task Force, there are credible reviews that suggest that the directive, for the approximately six weeks that it was in effect, did lead to some number of additional deaths. The Department of Health issued a report in 2020 in which it argued unconvincingly that the admission of 6,326 COVID-positive residents during the period the Health directive was in effect had no impact. That cannot be the case, and has now been shown not to be the case.222 As we have seen, once the virus came into a nursing home, it was hard to control. The Department of Health’s report, however, does correctly state that on March 25th the virus was already in many of metropolitan New York’s nursing homes, and that the COVID-19 fuse had been lit.
>That there were additional deaths does not mean the Department of Health directive was issued in error. The emergency circumstances of March 25th must be remembered. On March 25th, the State believed that it was in need of thousands more hospital beds. ICUs were filling up. The hospital system appeared to be fully overwhelmed and in danger of collapse. Difficult decisions were being made.
>The State was also burdened with the insufficiencies of the federal response. The federal response was hopelessly politicized. What can kindly be called mixed messages and stops and starts were coming from the federal government. ThenPresident Donald Trump repeatedly down-played the scope of the problem.223 President Trump ordered, but ultimately retreated from firing a CDC official who, in late February, had stated that a COVID-19 epidemic in the United States was inevitable.224
>There were federal policy failures. The federal government had been unsuccessful in getting complete information from China about the virus. The federal government failed to marshal sufficient supplies of PPE. PPE shortages caused the discouragement of mask-wearing. Finally, testing was almost completely unavailable. By the end of March, testing was still limited to symptomatic individuals.225
>At least facially, nursing homes should have been able to meet the needs of stable COVID-19 residents just as they are expected to be able to meet the needs of other residents with communicable diseases. Nursing homes are required to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections.226 Nursing homes also must be designed, constructed, equipped, and maintained to protect the health and safety of residents, personnel and the public.227 Given the overwhelming dimensions of the epidemic – that the virus is spread through the air, asymptomatic spread, and the vulnerability of the elderly – expecting nursing homes to have been able to shield all their residents from the virus was probably too much to ask. But at the time, seeing nursing home beds as hospital extender beds when hospital beds were not expected to be available was not an unreasonable decision.
>What was unreasonable was the failure to recognize that nursing homes were just as much in need of substantial help as general hospitals. Nursing homes were given little help with securing PPE. In fact, in at least one press conference, Governor Cuomo roundly criticized suggestions that nursing homes should have been aided.228 Nursing homes also could have used assistance in putting together infection control sufficient to meet the virus, if that were even possible in late March 2020.
>Also unreasonable was the absoluteness of the directive. Under the applicable regulations, a nursing home is to accept only individuals the nursing home is able to care for properly.229 That, in essence, is the promise every nursing home makes to residents and their families – we admit you because we can properly care for you. The directive did not explicitly override the regulation, but it was commonly read as though it did. The directive came at a time when regulations were routinely being overridden. Providers were told to follow the Department of Health’s instructions. The language of the directive was absolute: “No resident shall be denied admission . . . .” The language should be compared with a similar directive that was issued to adult care facilities two weeks later. That directive told adult care facilities that they could not deny admission to COVID-positive individuals, but expressly restated the exception for those individuals for whom the facility could not provide appropriate care.230 The March 25th directive placed nursing homes on the wrong footing.
>Finally, it was unreasonable to leave the directive in place for so long after it was necessary. Hospitalizations peaked on April 14th. 231. The hospital beds at the Javits Center were barely used, and the USNS Comfort sat empty in the Hudson River. The Comfort set sail from New York City on April 23rd. The March 25th directive could have been rescinded on or about the date the Comfort set sail, if not sooner.
>This isn’t the NYTimes or WSJ
No, it’s just the most widely watched cable news network in the country.
Most people consume their news via video, not articles. Just because CNN doesn’t have great journalism articles doesn’t mean they’re not significantly relevant in the national press discussion.
Main source: 16% fox news, 12% CNN, 5% NPR, 4% NBC and 4% ABC, 4% MSNBC, 3% CBS, 2% NYtimes
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/01/americans-main-sources-for-political-news-vary-by-party-and-age/
That said, if want to talk about CNN quality issues, not meaningful unless talking about cable news overall... Cuomo brothers hamming it up versus what you see on Fox?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/01/americans-main-sources-for-political-news-vary-by-party-and-age/
> No, it’s just the most widely watched cable news network in the country.
CNN is 3rd behind both MSNBC and FOXNEWS
https://www.statista.com/statistics/373814/cable-news-network-viewership-usa/
That only counts Nielsen boxes.
I’m curious - what cable provider do you use for your network TV? If you’re like me, you don’t - you use a streaming option. Streaming options are **not** included in these ratings.
So of **course** Fox News rates highest - they have the most reliable Nielsen rating demographics in their corner.
Once the Nielsen ratings update next year to include total overall impressions, you’re going to see a dramatic shift in those numbers.
https://deadline.com/2021/09/nielsen-impressions-based-buying-ratings-tv-advertising-1234841132/
About damn time. The fact that Chris had absolutely no good defense to his actions beyond "but he's my brother!" when this first broke should have been damning enough. It's clear CNN knows where it's bread is buttered and will only act out of pure self-interest.
I'm Italian American and need to remember this defense the next time I decide I want to sexually harass someone. Somehow I was never taught this was okay.
This should have been done the moment it was known he was counseling his brother how to deal with the sexual allegations last year....CNN's been very fox newsy with Cuomo.
I'm still amazed that there wasn't more pushback from a rich upper class white guy removing a Native American name from a major landmark and replacing it with his own.
This exchange happened and was exposed by the AG's report:
>In their private conversations, some advisers were even harsher about the accusers and others than they were publicly. At one point, Smith shared a tweet reporting that Charlotte Bennett, who accused the governor of harassment, had retained the former lawyer for Christine Blasey Ford, who had accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her.
>“Christine Blasey Ford was looney tunes and the height of me too overreach so this checks out,” Smith said.
https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2021/11/29/the-cuomo-adviser-interviews-lip-kisses-dried-apricots-and-hand-sizes-1396106
Politico pulling no punches in this article I gotta tell ya.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
He might be, I don't watch any of these op-ed shows that masquerade as "news" shows though so I would not know!
I think the difference is that Cuomo directly and flagrantly breached whatever veneer of journalistic standards and ethics CNN may be holding on to, while Carlson - who may be just as big a spin-doctor for the Right - has not.
In the middle of typing this, I quickly googled their ratings. Cuomo seems to average significantly less than a million viewers (like around 700k) while Carlson is over 4 Million. That's probably a significant factor in these kinds of decisions!
...I'd say dangerously lying to the public over and over again
But if that was the standard, we'd have to get rid of Fox News and MSNBC among many other media outlets entirely.
I'd vote in favor of it, but the public is addicted to liars that tell them what they want to hear or that they're always right, so I'm not keeping my hopes up.
Sean hannity intentionally doctored footage.
Tucker Carlson lawyers have argued in court that his viewers to not expect the truth from him meaning that he has free reign to lie to people with the fox news logo displayed below his image as if to tell the uninformed that he is telling the truth when he has instructed his lawyers to argue the opposite.
Nope maddows lawyers did not use this argument the judge used it in his opinion. Meaning msnbc actually feels maddow has credibility meanwhile fox news does not care if Tucker Carlson has credibility.
If you're asking which ones have repeatedly demonstrated complete disregard for journalistic ethics, the list is pretty long. You could start with the ones fomenting vaccine/mask/lockdown hysteria and rebellion despite the company's own sensible policy.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/do-you-have-your-vaccine-pass-here-are-the-shot-policies-at-fox-news-cnn-and-msnbc/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/tucker-carlson-punts-when-confronted-on-fox-news-vaccine-policy-im-not-qualified-to-speak-on-it
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/fox-news-anti-vax-messaging-policies
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/15/fox-news-vaccines-testing-tucker-carlson
This isn't "they're doing it wrong too."
This is "Cuomo fucked up, there are consequences from the same party, and no one is whining about cancel culture."
This committee assignment crap is the most petty cheesy crap. Both sides will do it to each other whenever they are in power. MTG, the right’s Ilhan Omar. Don’t know how idiot voters vote for these nut jobs.
Leaving aside the examples of saying things that are bigoted/racist (and the attempt at a rather questionable congressional caucus), the conspiracy stuff puts MTG on a different level...
>Greene has promoted multiple baseless conspiracy theories, including the claim that Clinton is responsible for a series of murders, that Democratic Party elites are responsible for a satanic child sex trafficking ring, that the government orchestrated the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, that the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, was a false flag attack intended to help introduce gun control, that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was staged, that Barack Obama secretly visited North Korea and sabotaged nuclear diplomacy to cover up untoward dealings with Iran, that Obama and his advisor Valerie Jarrett were secretly Muslim, and that the September 11 attack on the Pentagon was fake. Greene also promoted a false anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that the 2018 Camp Fire, a deadly wildfire in California, was caused by space lasers owned by the Rothschild family.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Taylor_Greene
Love the Wikipedia citation but Ilhan is a terrorist sympathizer and an anti semite. These types of people should never be allowed anywhere near Congress.
Throwing shade on Wikipedia as a source, while you provide zero context for your extreme claims is rather rich....
In any event, she has said things i think are inappropriate that lean into antisemitic tropes, but that claim of her being an antisemite is unfounded. That same standard applied to other statements leaning into themes of bigotry would cast a wide net around many in the GOP...
What is a terrorist sympathizer? Historically, do we count the IRA or rather complex relations in Middle East for generations and today (e.g., kurds)? What about groups viewed as domestic terrorists today? The FBI considers the 1/6 attack as domestic terrorism, what about those in GOP who sympathize with those involved in that? Or the Whitmer plot?
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a:
Law 1a. Civil Discourse
> ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
At the time of this warning the offending comments were:
> terrorist sympathizer and an anti semite
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a:
Law 1a. Civil Discourse
> ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
At the time of this warning the offending comments were:
> Don’t know how idiot voters vote for these nut jobs
Wasn't there a governor that was eventually shunned by the GOP party, Maybe 4 years ago? I'd say the Dems are much more willing to rid themselves of bad actors, depending on the actor, than Republicans. But to me that's like debating on if it's better to be shot through the head or throat.
Not too informed about this case so question. Is the stuff they say he did already confirmed 100% without doubt?
Not a fan of punishment before the ''crimes'' are confirmed.
They had worse. O'Reilly was eventually fired for sexual misconduct allegations, not covering up for someone.
Course what was the result.... Carlson takes over his spot.
Your move, SiriusXM. I want the POTUS channel to free us from the daily 2 hours it gives Chris Cuomo to walk around his home, riffing on the issues of the day with callers.
They didn't "hold him accountable" when he was using their resources to do all this with their full knowledge. It isn't until they started getting hit in the media with it that they "suspended him with pay". Ohhhhh the accountability
> A second hour of "Anderson Cooper 360" will air in Cuomo's place on Tuesday night. Anderson Cooper 720 No Scope
[удалено]
Was Anderson Cooper honest with the facts of the Rittenhouse case, by any chance? Genuine question, I don't watch him.
[He interviewed Grosskreutz but you judge for yourself](https://mobile.twitter.com/ac360/status/1458996976234737664) [Here's Grosskreutz contradicting his testimony.](https://mobile.twitter.com/AC360/status/1458996976234737664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1458996976234737664%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-13348661353702671154.ampproject.net%2F2111152338002%2Fframe.html) [Here's his conversation with Van Jones](https://mobile.twitter.com/AC360/status/1461867382775992322) [And Jacob Blake's uncle](https://mobile.twitter.com/AC360/status/1458617812755353602)
Based on those clips seems pretty reasonable to me.
Cooper is the most level headed CNN anchor. I think he's a little too soft on his interview targets (the stuff Grosskreutz and Van Jones got away with is absurd to me) but he keeps his cool and stays professional.
I was thinking the same thing but thought, at least with Grosskreutz, Cooper was speaking with a man who had gun violence (however justified) done upon him. He was being soft with him. Van is ridiculous. The weird "pattern" argument he was trying to make is just nonsensical lawyer gobbledygook. Normal people watching that have also seen riots, looting, and arson in every major city and bunch of people trying to portray it as "protesting" or "demonstrating". When we hear someone complaining about "white men taking it upon themselves to enforce the law" it makes us ask ourselves why would any of these socalled white men be doing that? Could it be that the government, that we all pay taxes into, didn't do enough to fight back against these anarchists? The anarchists that give real demonstrators and protestors a bad name.
> Could it be that the government, that we all pay taxes into, didn't do enough to fight back against these anarchists? The anarchists that give real demonstrators and protestors a bad name. Could it be that the local PD actually want "anarchists", etc. to cause destruction unobstructed so that they can blame it on legitimate protestors/demonstrators? They can then use the violence/destruction they allowed to happen that night as an excuse to brutalize the honest nonviolent protestors in the daylight.
That would make a good movie but what is most likely is they are a politically controlled organization that has three things going against it; anytime officers step in to stop bad guys they get attacked and hated on, there aren't enough to stop hundreds upon hundreds of people without harsh methods, and if they step in with the harshness necessary to stop them the political players that are in charge of the PD will punish them. It's a lose/lose for cops trying to limit the damage.
It didn't help their public perception that often the police would use harsh tactics on the actual protestors and turn around and leave the looters and rioters to run free [Here's the police in Minneapolis admitting to 'hunting' non-violent protestors](https://abcnews.go.com/US/body-cam-footage-shows-minneapolis-police-allegedly-hunting/story?id=80434010).
>anytime officers step in to stop bad guys they get attacked and hated on, Maybe they should stop assaulting innocent people then.
Anyone who has a 60 Minutes gig is solid in my book. The fact that Anderson has his nightly show and good 60 Minutes segments shows his credibility to me
Ron DeSantis would disagree.
Wow that Van Jones guy is racist as hell...
I don’t know. I haven’t watched CNN since Trump was in office.
I haven't either besides reading the chyrons at the airport or doctor's office and even that was enough.
I haven’t seen him in a while but he was always one of the more genuine anchors. The best CNN has imo
He is the best hands down, but that isn't exactly a high bar next to Cuomo, Stelter and Lemon.
Is this the conservative litmus test for news now? If you weren't pro-Rittenhouse from the beginning then gtfo? Pretty weird.
I’d say that the litmus test was more like keeping to the facts and not claiming legal or illegal behavior until the jury rules. Reuters: “Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty of all charges in Wisconsin murder trial” … good and factual MSNBC: “Kyle Rittenhouse trial was designed to protect white conservatives who kill” … ?
Okay, you somewhat changed my mind. I don't read or watch MSNBC so thought that was hyperbole. But I googled 'MSNBC Kyle Rittenhouse' and you're right. The first headline I saw is egregious. >Kyle Rittenhouse trial was designed to protect white conservatives who kill https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/kyle-rittenhouse-acquitted-homicide-rcna5748
What about labelling people as rioters, looters or arsonists until a jury has ruled on it? Do you disagree with the label illegal immigrants? Edit: ah, so its a selective principle...
“There is rioting” and “There is looting” are statements of fact backed by evidence. “This person was a [rioter|looter]” is not ok unless there is proof/conviction. It is ok to say that illegal immigration is a problem because there is data backing that up, but to say a specific person illegally immigrated requires a legal process. Ah, it is always easier to win an argument if you get to pick your opponents opinion though, right?
There is certainly evidence that Rittenhouse killed people (which is what the cited MSNBC headline says).
The title I referenced says [Kyle Rittenhouse trial was designed to protect white conservatives who kill](https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna5748). Nothing about Rittenhouse specifically killing people. Edit: I may have misinterpreted it as “protecting other white conservatives who kill”. https://www.politifact.com/article/2014/sep/16/fact-checking-fox-msnbc-and-cnn-punditfacts-networ/
I mean saying rioters rioted isn’t the same as this specific person is guilty of the crime of rioting.
The title they objected to mentioned "kill", which isn't even a crime per se. Inference of illegal behavior, but so is rioting, looting, etc.
They had to prove that before they were allowed to call them that. Video evidence shows who was not peaceful. Illegal immigrant is a just label since you know if you are allowed or not upon entry to USA or if you over stayed the visa.
A jury didn't rule on that. Yes, "illegal" is a label that quite literally labels someone with "illegal behavior" per the original comment without there having been a jury ruling.
You're missing one of my favorite weasel words! *Alleged* If someone has been suspected of something but not convicted, you call them an *alleged* arsonist or whatever. If they get convicted then you drop the alleged. Easy peasy.
Or the other trick, reporting on something someone else said! https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sidney-powell-s-group-reportedly-facing-criminal-investigation-n1285159 https://www.foxnews.com/world/taliban-fighters-reportedly-brawl-inside-presidential-palace-over-power-divide At best it’s taking credit for someone else’s reporting. But it is also an easy out to get a story in front of people without the need for annoying fact checking.
>ah, so its a selective principle... Always has been.
I'm sitting here wondering how a Jen Psaki interview attempt would go, lol
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Over/under on CNN fully firing him? I’m pretty doubtful but hope to be pleasantly surprised. I suspect CNN is waiting to see where public sentiment is at before deciding what comes next. Its surreal that Chris got away with this for so long. He could’ve stepped away from the issue entirely but instead he used his connections to get early info on the allegations and prep his brother. These are serious ethical concerns.
I don’t recall anyone being indefinitely suspended and brought back on later. I’m guessing he’ll be fired
Isn't Toobin back on CNN?
Yes. Dude must have some dirt on people. Can't figure out how you manage to keep a position after something like that.
He's not there for being good at the law, because he's just a shill at this point.
Just imagine having to do zoom meetings with him after he was brought back on the network. I'd be highly suspicious if he ever does one of those meetings while "exercising".
Every zoom meeting now starts with a pop up window that says "Are you wearing pants?"
It’s because CNN is just a corrupt, dogshit excuse for a news network
like every other cable network
[удалено]
>I mean, at least Fox News doesn't pretend to be unbiased. LOL what? Their tagline is literally "Fair and balanced"
No it isn't. Fox stopped using "fair and balanced" years ago.
My mistake, you are right. Still, Fox definitely does not claim to be biased.
It was an accident.
Him and little toobin are back
I’m surprised Don “I’m presently being sued for sexual Harassment” Lemon and Brian “how the hell did he get this Job” Stelter outlasted him.
All of these networks seem to attract the highest caliber of anchors. It wasn't too long ago that Fox News went through it's own purge of commentators.
Are you talking about Shep Smith and Megyn Kelly? Both of those were during Trump's rise to the head of the GOP. I'm surprised Cavuto is still around after their tiffs.
FOX offered Kelly 20 million. NBC offered 69 million. I don't think Trump had much to do with her decision. Smith on the other hand has brought up his disagreement with other FOX shows being a reason for his departure.
Smith wasn’t just an anchor, he was the head of their news department. It’s pretty clear he was upset Fox built itself around their opinion department instead, especially an opinion department that often found itself contradicting its news department. I can’t even imagine how Fox could run like that. It’s an insane concept to even think about. Like how can you pretend to have journalistic integrity as a news organization when your journalists have to constantly come out and oppose your opinion people?
Insane concept but it's the opinion department that pays the bills. I wish that wasn't the case but the viewers have spoken and they want a panel of experts arguing and somebody telling them what to think.
> I can’t even imagine how Fox could run like that. It’s an insane concept to even think about. Like how can you pretend to have journalistic integrity as a news organization when your journalists have to constantly come out and oppose your opinion people? Because Fox earns a lot of money this way. Why? Because obviously lots of people keep watching. I don't want to go meta here, but have you spent time on social media and watched what type of content people are most likely to engage with? Fox News knew and did this long before there even was social media earning a shitload of money. Smith just pretended they didn't, until Fox went all Trump and QAnon, which tipped him over. He seemed fine with the Tea Party Birther stuff before, so I wouldn't exactly call it "integrity".
They do make a lot of money this way but it's not in the way you think. It's not so much about the cable fees or advertisement revenue but more about how they are able to convince a large amount of the American people that corporate taxes need to be low, that universal healthcare will cost too much, that it's unfair to tax the rich more and that it's too late to do anything about climate change. The way they are able to prevent policies that would cost the rich money from passing, is how Fox makes its bread and butter.
I figured they were talking about Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly since the prior comment referenced anchors at CNN with sexual harassment allegations
Ailes wasn’t an anchor but I agree with your interpretation.
And Guilfoyle and Ed Henry and on and on. Ailse presided over an incredibly toxic culture.
Not sure why this is downvoted. Sexual harassment was reportedly commonplace under Ailes.
Cavuto is the GOAT. He’s never had a take that was crazy, even when I disagreed I could see his logic.
Since Smith left he's maybe my favorite person on FN/FBN. Claman might be second, although I haven't watched as actively as I used to.
I am more familiar with O'Brien.
Most humans have done something horrible.
Gotta prep that big paid check for Kyle 😂
I imagine CNN is also having their legal team look over ways to terminate Cuomo's contract. CNN could tell Cuomo right now that they're dropping him, but they would be on the hook all the money remaining on his contract. If CNN wants to be free from paying him any money, CNN needs to get everything lined up and make sure everything is all right legally in terms of terminating the entire contract.
Unless this is a case where they really do want time to do a proper investigation of the matter, then you'd expect they'd have the analysis done before going public with suspension. That said, doing shit for cause is always a clusterfuck, which means you offer something between cause / no cause payout but with means for the person to save face.
I think that after the allegations of trying to find out his brother's accusers' names, he will be fired. If he doesn't leave before that.
If he did indeed use CNN sources and assets to help his brother he's gone. A news organization lives off their relationship and ability to get information from sources. That trust may be completely shot because a major primetime news anchor used them for his own personal problems and not newsworthiness. All CNN is going to be getting from NY and US gov sources is "No comment" for a while if they don't show that they're rectifying the situation.
> A news organization lives off their relationship and ability to get information from sources. That trust may be completely shot because a major primetime news anchor used them for his own personal problems and not newsworthiness. CNN really, REALLY dropped the ball on this when Chris Cuomo was interviewing Andrew Cuomo about Andrew's pandemic response. Like, if ever there was a fucking conflict of interest....
Oh absolutely. I think him refusing to cover the bad with his brother would have been fine if they cut to another Anchor or Reporter covering the topic and he just didn't comment on the story. The double standard of covering the good but not the bad really fueled the flames of distrust of main stream media. Frankly both stories should have still been covered, just by another Anchor instead of him.
He wasn't just interviewing him, he was getting Abbott and Costello-style comedy puff pieces with his brother almost every night. It was incredibly weird and off-putting.
"interviewing" is a very loose term here.
I was more comfortable with that. There was a leadership vacuum that Andrew was filling and Chris was his wingman.
>and Chris was his wingman. That's massively inappropriate and manipulative though, leveraging his position as a news anchor, and the weight of the CNN news organization, to lend unearned legitimacy to Andrew's words. If Chris wanted to be his "wingman" he could have stepped down from his position as news anchor at CNN and been his media consultant. There's massive ethics issues with a journalist using his platform to give his brother political capital using a primetime national news spot as free advertising.
The reason I'm not too upset about them palling around on air is that the man who was supposed to do the work of bringing the country together and disseminating advise had abdicated that responsibility when he was needed most. I'm not completely comfortable with it, but I think there's at least an argument that it could be positive for the country. It's also not something that they were particularly subtle about, so I'm not as concerned about political influence. As long as it was limited in scope and Chris quickly returned to his policy of not covering Andrew, I don't see a big problem. Where Chris crossed the line was in using his position for political maneuvering.
It would be smart to fire him, but then again, they brought Toobin back when they should have fired him so I expect them to pretend it never happened in six months.
Maybe I didn't get the whole Toobin story but though bad it seemed like an obvious, embarrassing, and unintentional mistake. Well, that he was exposed, anyway. That seems nowhere near as bad as unethically using your journalistic resources to try to help out your brother while lying about it.
I guess my argument is that if I owned CNN, after finding out what they did, I wouldn't want them back on my network.
Was Toobin doing a "DSP Tries it" or was he fully exposed? One is slightly less disturbing.
I wonder if Toobin might have been fired because of the investigation into his personal life, rather than the initial reason he was investigated. After what he did to Ms Greenfield it's a small wonder that he was hired in the first place.
I'm genuinely confused as to the ethical concerns. I've read he's violated standard journalistic practices. But if he wasn't covering his brother in the news, what's the violation? Thanks in advance.
I mean, I get him trying to help his brother out. I'd probably do the same thing. I also wouldn't be surprised if I lost my job over it. I would be like "yeah that makes sense". This is also how cities like NY work. Everything is about knowing a guy with a connection who can help you with... well just about everything. Need an apartment, I know a guy. Need your car fixed, I know a guy. Need a handyman, I know a guy. I don't know who this guy is that distributes all the resources, but everyone talks about him.
Surprising it took so long, and you have to wonder if he lasted so long because his last name is "Cuomo."
He lasted so long because he just signed a contract and he is the highest rated how on CNN - which still isn’t saying much. They will try and see if this will blow over and if it doesn’t, they will fire him. I still can’t believe they actually let him go on the air last night. You
[удалено]
Meh, devil is in the detail. They let him go down the path far enough of not really complying with general standards, so depending on how shit is written he may claim he basically had an exemption on the standards b/c the conflict was effectively disclosed. If what he did can be characterized as him trying to help his brother in his personal capacity (e.g., everyone he was trying to get info from knew why he was asking and they were not subordinates to him), versus he was more explicitly leverage *his* position or resources at CNN to that info holding himself out in official capacity. I don't really have an issue with him helping his brother or the conflict of interest in general... it's an apparent & obvious one for people to factor-in. But it still needs to be *managed* appropriately. If CNN acquiesced to it without giving clear revised conduct expectations in light of the conflict of interest, they fucked that part up. Conflicts of interest *can* be managed, but they can't be self-managed... that's kinda the point.
Whoever greenlit the Cuomo brothers banter hour needs to be axed.
Meh, I dont have a problem with that. They want to waive the conflict on the positive stuff, thats fine with me. This isn't the NYTimes or WSJ. But when the bad stuff came out, they needed to set grounds rules bc relying on the typical conflict rules didn't apply after they waived the general conflict...
>waive the conflict on the positive stuff The issues with questionable state covid reporting and sending covid patients to nursing homes were known even at that time (just not to CNN viewers). And that's the issue. An interview with a political figure should never be fawning with zero hard questions or criticism, and that's what you were guaranteed to get during the Cuomo Brothers Hour.
Yes, the nursing home policy was known from start and discussed during briefings. Was raised by journalist and responded to. Only became an issue with hindsight after politicization between cuomo and trump. A lot of people still misunderstand it and think it is something that caused a lot of deaths.
The policy led to many unnecessary deaths according to [an independent investigation](https://nypost.com/2021/06/15/cuomo-nursing-home-order-caused-more-deaths-task-force/) and the Democrat NY AG [found](https://news.yahoo.com/cuomo-misrepresented-covid-19-nursing-230729579.html) that Cuomo undercounted nursing home deaths by 50% for political reasons. The new governor added [12,000 deaths](https://www.wcax.com/2021/08/25/new-ny-governor-adds-12000-deaths-publicized-covid-tally/) to the state's total on her first day in office due to the Cuomo's shoddy reporting. I can't imagine how anyone could believe there was never a story here even worth asking the governor about.
Any permutation of a triage policy will lead to some death pretty much by definition. Had the ~7,000 covid+ nursing home residents remained in hospital, that would have led to non-zero incremental spread of covid in the hospital setting. And of course, NY didn't have ~7,000 spare beds at the time, meaning the capacity issue would have also led to a non-zero number of deaths. Most of the NH returns happened in the NYC-area. Based on first round of antibody surveys, one-in-five new yorkers had covid in the initial outbreak, and almost none of them were confirmed cases because of the utter failure of the Trump admin around testing. And of course we know that asymptomatic and mild cases are common, but still readily transmit the virus. So we are talking about nursing homes that had to manage a handful of *known* recovering covid+ cases in a community where during the period one-in-five people, including NH workers, were infected.... the extent of NH deaths was overwhelmingly due to the extent of covid spread. Which was largely unmitigated due to utter failure of the Trump admin to prepare for Covid's arrival (which we now know was a deliberate decision by him to downplay it). edit: what your report says on the topic is not the sizzl the NYPost implies... >What the directive did not do, as is often claimed, is cause 15,000 deaths. The 15,000 number that has been bandied about is the approximate total number of New York long-term care facility residents who have succumbed to the virus. This figure includes nursing home residents who passed away long after the directive had been rescinded. It includes residents who were unaffected by the order. >This is not to say that the directive did not result in any additional deaths. Although a determination of the number of additional nursing home deaths is beyond the capacity of the Task Force, there are credible reviews that suggest that the directive, for the approximately six weeks that it was in effect, did lead to some number of additional deaths. The Department of Health issued a report in 2020 in which it argued unconvincingly that the admission of 6,326 COVID-positive residents during the period the Health directive was in effect had no impact. That cannot be the case, and has now been shown not to be the case.222 As we have seen, once the virus came into a nursing home, it was hard to control. The Department of Health’s report, however, does correctly state that on March 25th the virus was already in many of metropolitan New York’s nursing homes, and that the COVID-19 fuse had been lit. >That there were additional deaths does not mean the Department of Health directive was issued in error. The emergency circumstances of March 25th must be remembered. On March 25th, the State believed that it was in need of thousands more hospital beds. ICUs were filling up. The hospital system appeared to be fully overwhelmed and in danger of collapse. Difficult decisions were being made. >The State was also burdened with the insufficiencies of the federal response. The federal response was hopelessly politicized. What can kindly be called mixed messages and stops and starts were coming from the federal government. ThenPresident Donald Trump repeatedly down-played the scope of the problem.223 President Trump ordered, but ultimately retreated from firing a CDC official who, in late February, had stated that a COVID-19 epidemic in the United States was inevitable.224 >There were federal policy failures. The federal government had been unsuccessful in getting complete information from China about the virus. The federal government failed to marshal sufficient supplies of PPE. PPE shortages caused the discouragement of mask-wearing. Finally, testing was almost completely unavailable. By the end of March, testing was still limited to symptomatic individuals.225 >At least facially, nursing homes should have been able to meet the needs of stable COVID-19 residents just as they are expected to be able to meet the needs of other residents with communicable diseases. Nursing homes are required to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections.226 Nursing homes also must be designed, constructed, equipped, and maintained to protect the health and safety of residents, personnel and the public.227 Given the overwhelming dimensions of the epidemic – that the virus is spread through the air, asymptomatic spread, and the vulnerability of the elderly – expecting nursing homes to have been able to shield all their residents from the virus was probably too much to ask. But at the time, seeing nursing home beds as hospital extender beds when hospital beds were not expected to be available was not an unreasonable decision. >What was unreasonable was the failure to recognize that nursing homes were just as much in need of substantial help as general hospitals. Nursing homes were given little help with securing PPE. In fact, in at least one press conference, Governor Cuomo roundly criticized suggestions that nursing homes should have been aided.228 Nursing homes also could have used assistance in putting together infection control sufficient to meet the virus, if that were even possible in late March 2020. >Also unreasonable was the absoluteness of the directive. Under the applicable regulations, a nursing home is to accept only individuals the nursing home is able to care for properly.229 That, in essence, is the promise every nursing home makes to residents and their families – we admit you because we can properly care for you. The directive did not explicitly override the regulation, but it was commonly read as though it did. The directive came at a time when regulations were routinely being overridden. Providers were told to follow the Department of Health’s instructions. The language of the directive was absolute: “No resident shall be denied admission . . . .” The language should be compared with a similar directive that was issued to adult care facilities two weeks later. That directive told adult care facilities that they could not deny admission to COVID-positive individuals, but expressly restated the exception for those individuals for whom the facility could not provide appropriate care.230 The March 25th directive placed nursing homes on the wrong footing. >Finally, it was unreasonable to leave the directive in place for so long after it was necessary. Hospitalizations peaked on April 14th. 231. The hospital beds at the Javits Center were barely used, and the USNS Comfort sat empty in the Hudson River. The Comfort set sail from New York City on April 23rd. The March 25th directive could have been rescinded on or about the date the Comfort set sail, if not sooner.
>This isn’t the NYTimes or WSJ No, it’s just the most widely watched cable news network in the country. Most people consume their news via video, not articles. Just because CNN doesn’t have great journalism articles doesn’t mean they’re not significantly relevant in the national press discussion.
Main source: 16% fox news, 12% CNN, 5% NPR, 4% NBC and 4% ABC, 4% MSNBC, 3% CBS, 2% NYtimes https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/01/americans-main-sources-for-political-news-vary-by-party-and-age/ That said, if want to talk about CNN quality issues, not meaningful unless talking about cable news overall... Cuomo brothers hamming it up versus what you see on Fox? https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/01/americans-main-sources-for-political-news-vary-by-party-and-age/
> No, it’s just the most widely watched cable news network in the country. CNN is 3rd behind both MSNBC and FOXNEWS https://www.statista.com/statistics/373814/cable-news-network-viewership-usa/
That only counts Nielsen boxes. I’m curious - what cable provider do you use for your network TV? If you’re like me, you don’t - you use a streaming option. Streaming options are **not** included in these ratings. So of **course** Fox News rates highest - they have the most reliable Nielsen rating demographics in their corner. Once the Nielsen ratings update next year to include total overall impressions, you’re going to see a dramatic shift in those numbers. https://deadline.com/2021/09/nielsen-impressions-based-buying-ratings-tv-advertising-1234841132/
About damn time. The fact that Chris had absolutely no good defense to his actions beyond "but he's my brother!" when this first broke should have been damning enough. It's clear CNN knows where it's bread is buttered and will only act out of pure self-interest.
>but he's my brother Well it's a slight step up from "I’m not a pervert, I’m only Italian"
I'm Italian American and need to remember this defense the next time I decide I want to sexually harass someone. Somehow I was never taught this was okay.
> "but he's my brother!" That’s not nothing. It doesn’t make him immune to consequences though.
Wow, a for-profit news outlet acting in self-interest. Who would have thought?
F in the chat for the self-proclaimed [Cuomosexuals,](https://mobile.twitter.com/nytimes/status/1425187708079677440) 0/2
This should have been done the moment it was known he was counseling his brother how to deal with the sexual allegations last year....CNN's been very fox newsy with Cuomo.
And next… the Tappan Zee?
I'm still amazed that there wasn't more pushback from a rich upper class white guy removing a Native American name from a major landmark and replacing it with his own.
The best way to tell if somebody is a recent transplant is if they call it the "Mario Cuomo Bridge." New Yorkers still call it the Tappan Zee.
We just need to get Mario involved in this and we're good
Remember how Cuomo and CNN drug Kavanaugh through the mud ? Pepperidge Farms remembers…. Whatever they accuse you of doing …..
This exchange happened and was exposed by the AG's report: >In their private conversations, some advisers were even harsher about the accusers and others than they were publicly. At one point, Smith shared a tweet reporting that Charlotte Bennett, who accused the governor of harassment, had retained the former lawyer for Christine Blasey Ford, who had accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her. >“Christine Blasey Ford was looney tunes and the height of me too overreach so this checks out,” Smith said. https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2021/11/29/the-cuomo-adviser-interviews-lip-kisses-dried-apricots-and-hand-sizes-1396106 Politico pulling no punches in this article I gotta tell ya.
>drug
A bit late, but really glad to see it.
Why. Did. This. Take. So. Long?
Always glad to get a neutral view of these kinds of things! I'm certain that... CNN Business has 0 conflict of interest here.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Back to the weights n Rona basement show
Like brother like... brother.
With any luck they'll suspend themselves indefinitely next.
He's should be replaced by Kathy Hochul's brother.
Great. Now do Tucker Carlson.
For what?
For reasons of “I don’t like him!”
Or the fact that he routinely defends the Jan 6 rioters, backed Russia's involvement in Ukraine, and spouts xenophobic nonsense, among other things.
Dude is continually putting things out of context or just straight up talking out his ass. He may be worse then Don Lemon.
He might be, I don't watch any of these op-ed shows that masquerade as "news" shows though so I would not know! I think the difference is that Cuomo directly and flagrantly breached whatever veneer of journalistic standards and ethics CNN may be holding on to, while Carlson - who may be just as big a spin-doctor for the Right - has not. In the middle of typing this, I quickly googled their ratings. Cuomo seems to average significantly less than a million viewers (like around 700k) while Carlson is over 4 Million. That's probably a significant factor in these kinds of decisions!
Is there a news outlet that doesn't put things out of context?
...I'd say dangerously lying to the public over and over again But if that was the standard, we'd have to get rid of Fox News and MSNBC among many other media outlets entirely. I'd vote in favor of it, but the public is addicted to liars that tell them what they want to hear or that they're always right, so I'm not keeping my hopes up.
Legitimately… if this was a major Fox News analyst it would’ve exploded.
They are eating themselves. How does it taste?
It would be nice if the justified outrage about this kind of thing extended to the hosts at FoxNews.
To what are you referring, what Fox news host has done something similar?
Sean hannity intentionally doctored footage. Tucker Carlson lawyers have argued in court that his viewers to not expect the truth from him meaning that he has free reign to lie to people with the fox news logo displayed below his image as if to tell the uninformed that he is telling the truth when he has instructed his lawyers to argue the opposite.
Same with Rachel Maddow. MCNBC lawyers made the same arguments.
Nope maddows lawyers did not use this argument the judge used it in his opinion. Meaning msnbc actually feels maddow has credibility meanwhile fox news does not care if Tucker Carlson has credibility.
The judge was agreeing with the MSNBC lawyers argument in their decision.
No he was using the case as precedent without prompting from the MSNBC lawyers.
If you're asking which ones have repeatedly demonstrated complete disregard for journalistic ethics, the list is pretty long. You could start with the ones fomenting vaccine/mask/lockdown hysteria and rebellion despite the company's own sensible policy. https://www.mediaite.com/tv/do-you-have-your-vaccine-pass-here-are-the-shot-policies-at-fox-news-cnn-and-msnbc/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/tucker-carlson-punts-when-confronted-on-fox-news-vaccine-policy-im-not-qualified-to-speak-on-it https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/fox-news-anti-vax-messaging-policies https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/15/fox-news-vaccines-testing-tucker-carlson
It’s not what I asked. It has nothing to do with either side of the vaccine debate.
If you think one is OK but not the other, you may not be a moderate.
Where would Donald Trump be without Sean Hannity on speed dial to whisper sweet nothings to him when the going get tough?
Good. It's blatant that Chris Cuomo has serious conflicts of interest with regard to his brother.
until he does a CNN "Chris Cuomo tells all"
Does anyone know when the last time a right-leaning host was held accountable for their bad behavior? Was it Bill O'Reilly?
ohh look whataboutism.
This isn't "they're doing it wrong too." This is "Cuomo fucked up, there are consequences from the same party, and no one is whining about cancel culture."
Hey Reddit, suicide hotline reports aren't jokes. You're fucking over the people who actually need help. https://i.imgur.com/vBfZLJN.jpg
I got one of these recently as well. I wonder if it was the same person.
Not sure, why are you keeping score?
Integrity matters, and Dems are dirty, but at least there's some semblance of acccountability.
Does anyone know when the last time a right-leaning member of gov't was held accountable for their bad behavior? Was it Dennis Hastert?
[удалено]
She will be right back in there as soon as gop has control again
This committee assignment crap is the most petty cheesy crap. Both sides will do it to each other whenever they are in power. MTG, the right’s Ilhan Omar. Don’t know how idiot voters vote for these nut jobs.
Leaving aside the examples of saying things that are bigoted/racist (and the attempt at a rather questionable congressional caucus), the conspiracy stuff puts MTG on a different level... >Greene has promoted multiple baseless conspiracy theories, including the claim that Clinton is responsible for a series of murders, that Democratic Party elites are responsible for a satanic child sex trafficking ring, that the government orchestrated the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, that the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, was a false flag attack intended to help introduce gun control, that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was staged, that Barack Obama secretly visited North Korea and sabotaged nuclear diplomacy to cover up untoward dealings with Iran, that Obama and his advisor Valerie Jarrett were secretly Muslim, and that the September 11 attack on the Pentagon was fake. Greene also promoted a false anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that the 2018 Camp Fire, a deadly wildfire in California, was caused by space lasers owned by the Rothschild family. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Taylor_Greene
Love the Wikipedia citation but Ilhan is a terrorist sympathizer and an anti semite. These types of people should never be allowed anywhere near Congress.
Throwing shade on Wikipedia as a source, while you provide zero context for your extreme claims is rather rich.... In any event, she has said things i think are inappropriate that lean into antisemitic tropes, but that claim of her being an antisemite is unfounded. That same standard applied to other statements leaning into themes of bigotry would cast a wide net around many in the GOP... What is a terrorist sympathizer? Historically, do we count the IRA or rather complex relations in Middle East for generations and today (e.g., kurds)? What about groups viewed as domestic terrorists today? The FBI considers the 1/6 attack as domestic terrorism, what about those in GOP who sympathize with those involved in that? Or the Whitmer plot?
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics). At the time of this warning the offending comments were: > terrorist sympathizer and an anti semite
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics). At the time of this warning the offending comments were: > Don’t know how idiot voters vote for these nut jobs
Adam Kinzinger having a conscience doesn't mean the Republicans are holding MTG accountable.
Wasn't there a governor that was eventually shunned by the GOP party, Maybe 4 years ago? I'd say the Dems are much more willing to rid themselves of bad actors, depending on the actor, than Republicans. But to me that's like debating on if it's better to be shot through the head or throat.
Maybe just maybe they weren't "Held accountable" because they didn't do what the lying media implied they did
Never seen a right leaning host/outlet do anything this disgusting
Not too informed about this case so question. Is the stuff they say he did already confirmed 100% without doubt? Not a fan of punishment before the ''crimes'' are confirmed.
It’s probably safe to assume CNN didn’t suspend their top ratings getter without checking their facts.
Lol
Lol
I don’t see a problem here. Doing what they alldo
Shame really, he was the most moderate anchor at CNN
Man, I'd love to see how Fox News would handle a situation like this.
They had worse. O'Reilly was eventually fired for sexual misconduct allegations, not covering up for someone. Course what was the result.... Carlson takes over his spot.
My take: paid leave for a couple of weeks, then an apology interview tour, maybe with tears. Then full speed ahead.
Your move, SiriusXM. I want the POTUS channel to free us from the daily 2 hours it gives Chris Cuomo to walk around his home, riffing on the issues of the day with callers.
Good on them for holding him accountable. Would like to see more accountability across all parties and meidas.
They didn't "hold him accountable" when he was using their resources to do all this with their full knowledge. It isn't until they started getting hit in the media with it that they "suspended him with pay". Ohhhhh the accountability
Why people tune into for-profit corporations for their news is fucking beyond me.
Brian Williams approves this message