Wew here comes another lie.
CNN says they don't root for any president
Jose Moore
Nathan Barnes
I don't have enough data. What's in the video?
Chase Thompson
>We've seen this administration stacking the deck with friendlier news outlets, and when I say friendlier what I mean are news outlets that have a point of view. In some cases are openly rooting for the president. We don't see CNN or The New York Times rooting for any president, whether a Democrat or Republican. But the "Breitbarts" of the world, they do root for candidates and root for presidents. There's not anything necessarily wrong with that, it's a point-of-view form of journalism, but what we've seen is this administration taking a lot of questions from conservative outlets, from friendlier outlets, and that's a way of stacking the deck in order to have more favourable coverage.
Caleb Russell
>I wanted to mention one of the outlets that was invited to this briefing to give our viewers some perspective. CNN, right now, has about a million people watching. Sometimes more, sometimes less. OANN, One America News, one of the channels brought into this briefing, is so small it doesn't have Nielsen ratings, and yet the White House is giving it a lot of access because it views it as a friendlier outlet. So that's an example of a sort of imbalance. When you talk about "The New York Times" and the "CNNs" of the world, you might think they're biased, you might think they're not fair, but they're among the biggest news outlets in the country, and that's why all administrations, whether Clinton, Bush, Obama, would allow that kind of access to the BIG news outlets that cover every White House. That's why we didn't see President Bush take this kind of action--or before him, President H. W. Bush or President Reagan. They recognized the importance of reaching BIG news outlets and speaking with those journalists that speak on the behalf of the public.
Easton Wood
>So that's the challenge here. We're seeing a norm--not among Democrats or Republicans--this is bipartisan in the past: fair treatment of a variety of news organizations, and President Trump is challenging that by blocking these news outlets today.
Logan Stewart
What blatant bullshit. You could hear their anchors voices trembling on election night, they were near tears.
Donna Brazil was feeding the Clinton campaign debate questions for fucks sake.
On November ninth I expected a live streamed mass suicide.
Adam Howard
>we have more marketshare so we deserve access
Corporate news btfo
Logan Lewis
What a great election
Isaac James
>We don't see CNN or The New York Times rooting for any president
It's like 1984 except the thought police are retarded.
Aiden Lee
Wasn't there an article or something where they came out and said they were full of shit and skewed for Hilary? or was that the New York Times?
Brody Miller
Kek
Aiden Powell
...
Carter Williams
I'd slightly respect them if they just went all out and were honest about it. For example, Mother Jones is intensely biased leftist reporting, and it's often really quality reporting too - you just know what their perspective is and what they care about more.
Sebastian Wright
And not very good at hiding it
Aaron Torres
Holy shit stupid goy actually said that shit?
Oliver Edwards
>CNN
>well-respected news station since our parents and grandparents were alive
>loses all credibility in 2 years
Incredible
Jack Reed
Free press doesn't mean gaurenteed access.
Nicholas King
Holy shit I fucking hate CNN
Ryder Torres
But of course:
news.grabien.com
She also tried to cover it up in pic related saying "read the transcripts I didn't say that" when she did.
Robert Nguyen
0:35 my sides
Being that blatant.
They're called FAKE NEWS for a reason.
Levi Torres
You can't just say that
Gabriel Rodriguez
Who controls America?
Jayden Walker
Let's not turn a blind eye to what we found within wikileaks either. Clearly they have no bias.
Xavier Harris
But user, it's illegal to see the wiki leaks e-mails. We should leave to the (((experts))) to read and report (((their))) findings.