Did any of you just heard what Wolf Blitzer said on the show, and wrote in his blog?!

[The Technical]

He's asking his viewers what type of coverage should CNN give to Ralph Nader, that of a "marginal candidate", or that of a "mainstream frontrunner". They're basically openly admitting their sistematic cataloging of candidates, so that they can give a specific coverage to each of the two "types". This is sickening; although I've always been aware of the bias against Ron Paul, it really upsets me to see them openly admit such bias towards "non-status quo" candidates. Right before he went ahead with those comments, they were talking about the spoiler attribute of Ralph Nader, and how he's also to blame for the war in Iraq, as he cost Al Gore the presidency!!! The theory that they don't want a Republican like Ron Paul going up against a Democrat seems REALLY REALLY likely now, that's why they're propping up war-mongers and religious fanatics as the "frontrunners". Check out Wolf's blog so you see CNN show its true colors:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/25/blitzer-how-much-time-should-nader-get/

 

[Bruno]

My reply to Wolf on their comments section.

By your very question you openly admit your bias and purposeful unfair treatment of other candidates.
Thank you for spelling it out for all those who didn't already pick up on it from your pathetic excuse for campaign "coverage".

 

[The Technical]

I don't know if mine got accepted, but I'm "Fabian R." I really gave them a piece of my mind. Truly sickening what they're doing.

 

[sophocles07]

CNN and FOX may as well have scripts which go ahead and fill out a clear narrative like Will and Grace or 24 for us, as they don't allow anything to really play out democratically anyway.

They already have this to some extent, in terms of "what to cover"/how to cover/etc. (FOX memos for example), but they ought to just go ahead and lock it down completely. This half-assed narrative-application leaves it open to most of the population as to whether these guys actually are biased.

 

[sophocles07]

By the way, look at some of these responses from people:

Very little time if any, should be spent on Nadar, it's pretty late in the game, he's not a real contender, this is a game to him to see how much havoc he can cause. He is not giving any real regard to the American people, this is all about him.

as very little time as possible. all the air time should be given to the candidates who been in the process for than a year, it should be given to those who have raised money, made campaign stops and dedicated all their time to the election process. Nadar is a protest candidate but i wonder what he is protesting? all the candidates in this election are organized and strong , we dont need somebody who will distract attention from serious issues. what america needs right now is a good president, one who has a real plan not someone who is running for reasons that still remain fuzzy in my opinion. give nadar as little time as possible, and give the other more dedicated candidates as much time as they need to give the general public their opionion.

February 25th, 2008 4:16 pm ET

Nader is a joke and should not continuously destroy our country like he did in 2000. He know he is not going to win, so why take away votes that are not helping the country but hurting us. Go back to you home and stay out of the political ring "please"

I do not feel he has any chance of winning. You can give him 24 hour air time and he would still not have a chance of winning.

Honestly, I think that Nader's campaign is a joke. He cannot and will not win. His campaign is a useless attempt to get attention at best, a theif of possible votes at worst. Nader should not be taken seriously. It is as if a normal person were to put his name on a balot just to see how many times he could be on it.

ETC.

These people are complete psychos. They fail to see that Obama, etc. would have NO SUPPORT

if

not

in

the

news

every

second

of

the

fucking

day.

JAYSUS!

 

[Luft97]

He's asking his viewers what type of coverage should CNN give to Ralph Nader, that of a "marginal candidate", or that of a "mainstream frontrunner". They're basically openly admitting their sistematic cataloging of candidates, so that they can give a specific coverage to each of the two "types". This is sickening; although I've always been aware of the bias against Ron Paul, it really upsets me to see them openly admit such bias towards "non-status quo" candidates. Right before he went ahead with those comments, they were talking about the spoiler attribute of Ralph Nader, and how he's also to blame for the war in Iraq, as he cost Al Gore the presidency!!! The theory that they don't want a Republican like Ron Paul going up against a Democrat seems REALLY REALLY likely now, that's why they're propping up war-mongers and religious fanatics as the "frontrunners". Check out Wolf's blog so you see CNN show its true colors:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/25/blitzer-how-much-time-should-nader-get/

I just happened to have CNN on when I was eating my late lunch and caught him saying that. We all knew it, I guess he is just being open about media censorship now.

 

[Johncjackson]

So you are saying things are getting BETTER, basically?

Of course they have a tiered coverage system. How many times did you see Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, David Cobb, Michael Peroutka, Howard Phillips, or others on CNN or an "mainstream" ( I remember when CNN and FNC were the ones claiming not to be mainstream and complaining about the MSN) coverage?

Was everyone born in the last year?

 

[ToryNotion]

A few weeks ago NPR had a segment on Talk of the Nation about coverage of this election cycle. One of the speakers said that there is a 'winnowing process' that occurs but that the media had done it too quickly. I'm not sure if he meant there is just a journalistic winnowing of the field or that there is a combination of an electoral and journalistic winnowing of the field. It is unfortunate that this winnowing process can effect the outcome of the race as the candidates who don't appear to have a chance to win get so much less coverage and then it becomes almost a self-fulfilling prophesy in the end. The point that we need to press if that the media presents too restricted a range of opinion and fails in its responsibility to the public when it excludes certain candidates and their view points.

 

[jjank11]

Those people are complete idiots, they have no sense in mind of the ideas of equal rights, freedom and free speech. I just want them to get up there and run for president and then lets see what they say. Its simply assanine for Blitzer to even ask such a question.
I think Nader could force some legal action for censorship. That is exactly what it is. It is so blatant. The news corporations have very little to zero journalism, it is all just sensationalized news.

CNN = Censorship News Network
FNC = Faux News Channel

 

[Bruno]

My reply to Wolf on their comments section.

By your very question you openly admit your bias and purposeful unfair treatment of other candidates.
Thank you for spelling it out for all those who didn't already pick up on it from your pathetic excuse for campaign "coverage".

My comment never got out of moderation. Go figure.

 

[pacelli]

What a ridiculously sad question, and looking at the comments I have given up all hope that this country can be saved. People apparently love the media when they censor candidates and do not provide equal time. If I gave a crap enough to make a comment on his blog (which will not make a single bit of difference if I did), I'd request that CNN pull time from McLame, Hillaroid, and Osama in order to provide an equal percentage to Paul, Gravel, Hucklebee, Keyes, and Nader.

 

[Nirvikalpa]

This is really, really sad to see fellow Americans completely brainwashed by the media.

 

[Crowish]

I had the same reaction to reading that comments stream.

 

[A. Havnes]

I think it's sad that so many comments are filtered.

 

[ronpaulchronicles]

So Wolf has fianlly admitted something we already know. Sadly enough, Nader will get more press coverage than Paul. My one ray of hope is that it looks like Americans are getting tired of the MSM nonesense and turning to the Web for info. We may be just as biased in the blogosphere, but at least we're upfront about it.

Side note: Can people quit blaming Nader for Gore's loss? Al Gore lost because he was a crap canidiate with all the personality of a block of wood. Hell, even the Clintons didn't want to stump for him.

 

[ItsTime]

youtube?

 

[Liberté]

He's asking his viewers what type of coverage should CNN give to Ralph Nader, that of a "marginal candidate", or that of a "mainstream frontrunner". They're basically openly admitting their sistematic cataloging of candidates, so that they can give a specific coverage to each of the two "types". This is sickening; although I've always been aware of the bias against Ron Paul, it really upsets me to see them openly admit such bias towards "non-status quo" candidates. Right before he went ahead with those comments, they were talking about the spoiler attribute of Ralph Nader, and how he's also to blame for the war in Iraq, as he cost Al Gore the presidency!!! The theory that they don't want a Republican like Ron Paul going up against a Democrat seems REALLY REALLY likely now, that's why they're propping up war-mongers and religious fanatics as the "frontrunners". Check out Wolf's blog so you see CNN show its true colors:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/25/blitzer-how-much-time-should-nader-get/

There are 100's if not 1000's of Presidential candidates, the MSM could not cover them all, nor should they. Some things are just not news, and Ralph Nader running for President really isn't news worthy, he runs all the time, as a Dem Spoiler. Good for him, but why should the MSM give him more coverage then his campaign warrants?

 

[Gadsden Flag]

I disagree with Ralph Nader on too many things to vote for him, but I like him way, way better than Obama or Hillary. He seems like a very well read and knowledgable person. I think he is an eloquent speaker without being cliche (like Obama).

 

[Bruno]

They just had the same conversation half an hour ago on Fox.

One of the guests said, "Ron Paul has much more support nationwide and he is ignored, treated like a gnat in the debates, is that fair?"

 

[DAFTEK]

Wolf has been pushing Obama like a golden child and although he gave Ron Paul a few remarks here and there its just so he dosnet look so obvious of CNN's lovefest with Oboma, then they have the nerve to be the only news station to claim "Is the media giving Oboma a free ride?"