Just a few weeks ago, CNN head honcho Jeff Zucker said, “I think it was a legitimate criticism of CNN that it was a little too liberal.”
He went on to add, “We have added many more middle of the road conservative voices to an already strong stable of liberal voices,” and “are a much more balanced network.”
Proof once again that lying is a tenet of the cult of progressivism.
“Was a little too liberal?”
“Are a much more balanced network?”
Let’s call BS on the little weasel.
CNN may have added more conservative voices to their stable as Zucker claims, but if they did, they’re keeping them in the barn and not letting them out on the track.
During the Republican convention in Cleveland last week, CNN’s Anderson Cooper presided over a panel consisting of five liberals, countered by two Trump supporters, making it a total of six-to-two, counting Cooper (if you think Cooper is unbiased or has ever voted for anyone other than a democrat you can stop reading right here – I can’t give you the type of help you need).
This week, during the Democrat convention in Philadelphia, Zucker gave CNN’s audience a look at what he really means by changing the balance of their coverage – he went from a five-to-two ratio to eight-to-one: John King, Nia Malika Anderson, David Axelrod, Gloria Borger, Anderson Cooper, Van Jones, Paul Begala and Patti Solis Doyle, liberals all, and the lone contrarian voice, Jeffrey Lord.
Aside from the obvious – where is the balance Zucker spoke of? – this selection of guests raises a few other questions:
If Hillary is such a great candidate, how come CNN feels the need to promote her with eight voices against a sole Republican?
If CNN is against bullying, an issue they’ve done plenty of stories about in the past, how come they’re okay with odds of eight-against-one in their studio?
If liberals are intellectually superior, as they fancy themselves to be, how come it takes eight of their lizard brains to counter one conservative mind?
If they aren’t in the tank for Hillary, and feel they do not deserve to be mocked as the Clinton News Network, why do they so openly, even giddily act as her campaign surrogates?
The answer, of course, is this – they’re not a news organization, they’re a pom-pom waving cheerleader squad.
With the advent of new media they’ve been outed as biased hacks with zero journalistic integrity. The cat’s out of the bag, the charade is over, so they figure they might as well embrace their ideology and let their bias come out of the closet.
When accused of helping to create Trump by giving him too much coverage, Zucker responded, “I only wish that CNN had that much power to be able to create a front-runner on either side.”
Here, for once, Jeffrey was honest. They do wish they had that much power. They don’t, but bless their little partisan hearts, they’re going to keep trying to drag the Hildabeast across the finish line anyway.