CNN reporter Dana Bash gets intellectually "Snowballed"

[ronpaulitician]

If was as clear as you seem to think it is, 99% of the people who hear it wouldn't hear it wrong. I listened to it about 20 times to get that transcription exactly right, and i have to -force- myself to hear it the way you think is 'clear'. Because, to me, she clearly is saying she's worried.

There is evidence that Republicans ARE worried.

Is there evidence, aside from this video, that Dana Bash is worried?
Is there evidence, aside from this video, that Dana Bash talks to Republicans who are worried?

As I've said before (in other threads), if we parsed Paul's words the way we parse this woman's words, then just about every other of his statements is a contradiction. After all, he uses the word "but" at the start of almost every statement, effectively nullifying whatever statement he said before.

 

[V3n]

Take a picture so you don't forget..

 

[ronpaulitician]

Besides, even IF she has an agenda against Paul, this behavior will not solve it. If she doesn't walk away from a conversation with a Paul supporter thinking, "What a polite and friendly individual," then she's never going to change her mind about Paul's views. The people who converted me away from being a neocon didn't yell at me. In fact, nobody that has EVER converted me away from one my viewpoints to one of theirs did so by being antagonistic.

Have faith that our message will liberate the hearts and minds of even our most prolific opponents. Smile.

 

[dbill27]

When she said she was worried about Ron winning it was pretty obvious that it was just an accident and not what she meant. I felt bad for her watching this video. Of all the people, Dana bash hasn't really done anything

 

[dbill27]

I was actually embarrassed watching this video.

 

[iGGz]

)()(

 

[MsDoodahs]

Besides, even IF she has an agenda against Paul, this behavior will not solve it. If she doesn't walk away from a conversation with a Paul supporter thinking, "What a polite and friendly individual," then she's never going to change her mind about Paul's views. The people who converted me away from being a neocon didn't yell at me. In fact, nobody that has EVER converted me away from one my viewpoints to one of theirs did so by being antagonistic.

Have faith that our message will liberate the hearts and minds of even our most prolific opponents. Smile.

What "behavior?"

I don't recall anyone yelling at Dana in that video.

I don't have a problem with people speaking their mind to media personalities. In fact, I think it should happen a lot more often!

 

[iGGz]

)()(

 

[ronpaulitician]

What "behavior?"

The behavior displayed in this thread, in previous threads, in other places. Dana Bash is a pawn. We look silly with the amount of negative attention we are paying her. We look even sillier since it will accomplish zero. You think she'll start reporting more favorably because of this? (Note that I think the piece she did with Wolf was very favorable to Paul.) Speaking your mind is good, but if you can't get them to walk away with a smile, you're doing it wrong. That applies to anyone who you think disagrees with you on a political issue.

 

[MsDoodahs]

Somehow I don't think that media personalities will ever 'walk away with a smile' when the interaction involves someone calling them out for lying and being pawns.

 

[asurfaholic]

This woman is just one piece of a very messed up system of "objective journalism ". She is certainly guilty of always spinning Paul negatively. For that, I resent her.

Now the real question is, what can we do to fix all the news from being propaganda kings? Notice they don't report on NDAA, SOPA, other violations of civil liberties? Notice they always try to paint paul in negative colors? Notice they don't call out the other candidates for lies? Notice that even the tv shows always glorify the police state (NCIS, Law & Order, etc )?

There is a propaganda machine in place...and I don't think boycotting the sponsors will make any difference. For one, it is unlikely that we would make enough of a dent to offset the profit - companies will still make money because the millions of viewers who don't participate in a boycot will still be there. Secondly, assuming we could chase off the advertising, the free market would ensure that more business will take over the newly available advertising space. The media channels have to sell those advertising slots, so it would drop the price to encourage the market to buy. Then there is more to gain for any company who can afford it. This monster has heads that grow back faster than we will ever be able to cut off.

So how to put an end to this machine? Destroy the credibility of the bobble heads one at a time, until those that are left realize there is no other option, other than being fair, and true to the principles of objective journalism. Dana bash is up now, who's next?

 

[RickyJ]

I think maybe she might want get out of reporting now, her cover has been blown.

 

[ForLiberty2012]

This is sooo hilarious and awkward at the same time hahaha

 

[Keith and stuff]

I know most of the people in that video. They could have been slightly nicer to her but she is clearly wrong. She is not at all fair and completely biased. I look forward to her apology but i doubt it will ever happen.

 

[speciallyblend]

I know most of the people in that video. They could have been slightly nicer to her but she is clearly wrong. She is not at all fair and completely biased. I look forward to her apology but i doubt it will ever happen.

i thought they were being very nice. I was thinking can of tar and some feathers.

 

[libertyguy]

I was actually embarrassed watching this video.

There are 3 days to handle people that you disagree with (or you don't think are being fair and unbiased in journalism which should require such prerequisites).

1. You can shy away, but that would be passive.

2. You can yell, scream, or be verbally abusive.....and that would be aggressive.

or

3. You can tell them that you felt that they were not being fair and responsible. You can calmly explain why you felt this way and that you were disappointed. This is an assertive act and is a good way to communicate effectively so that, in this case, the media knows that they are being monitored for their objectivity and that they are being held accountable.

Dana Bash may never like RP or his followers, but after being confronted, I would be surprised if she is not more careful about what she says on national TV. Since she is in a position to influence hundreds of thousands of people with her words, having her be more careful would be a victory.

 

[RickyJ]

There are 3 days to handle people that you disagree with (or you don't think are being fair and unbiased in journalism which should require such prerequisites).

1. You can shy away, but that would be passive.

2. You can yell, scream, or be verbally abusive.....and that would be aggressive.

or

3. You can tell them that you felt that they were not being fair and responsible. You can calmly explain why you felt this way and that you were disappointed. This is an assertive act and is a good way to communicate effectively so that, in this case, the media knows that they are being monitored for their objectivity and that they are being held accountable.

Dana Bash may never like RP or his followers, but after being confronted, I would be surprised if she is not more careful about what she says on national TV. Since she is in a position to influence hundreds of thousands of people with her words, having her be more careful would be a victory.

I doubt many watch CNN or FOX. Their ratings suck. They only stay on the air because of the elite financing them.

 

[idiom]

Putting the shoe on the other foot is a solid moral lesson that appears in a good number of highly regarded children's books.

It only gets sad and embarrassing if she is a slow learner.

We can demolish anyone who attacks us. We are not doing so well at stopping the blackouts yet.

 

[eugenekop]

Great work guys!

I think we need to expose media bias, and do this in a civilized non aggressive way. I think what you guys did there was a good example of that. I'm sure that journalist will try to be less negative next time. CNN wants to have an image of professional objective journalism, so its important for her to look the part. Our criticism was effective and well deserving. Perhaps we should act in a less threatening way next time, but in general I am very happy that we are making a stand. Very good!

 

[SurfsUp]

There was another reporter on cnn(corrupt news network) that said I that it was "bad news for us(cnn) that Ron was getting the young vote and Gen-X vote"! Wish i'd recorded it! Was on just yesterday during the afternoon from what I remember. During Wolf's show perhaps.