COLBERT CONFIRMED SHILL

>Colbert Is Directly Instructed By Politicians On What To Put On His Show

wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/46703

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Evtlunon49E
frontpagemag.com/fpm/265043/james-okeefe-mainstream-media-dead-we-won-frontpagemagcom
hollywoodreporter.com/news/leslie-moonves-donald-trump-may-871464
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Remember when people cared about Colbert?

Should I act surprised?

wow finally, the objective truths from RT-leaks show me how the world really is!

He's always been a faggot and a whore.

Thank you for correcting the record

Yeah man, this Australian that's been committed to hosting a website to publish government and corporate leaks for years, the one who has consistently attacked administrations be they left or right wing, the one who released this email of a campaign staffer, in his own words admitting to pushing a narrative on the colbert report.
Yeah, he must be on russian payroll, it all makes sense. Fucking sheeple just don't understand

This is dumb, user
Those episodes featured bill clinton in them, the "them" in the email refers to the clinton aides and not colbert

that wasn't about the show. they hired colbert to host a q&a with bill clinton at some clinton gig. nothing wrong with that.

youtube.com/watch?v=Evtlunon49E

Thanks for Correcting The Record.

Didnt need wikileaks to tell me that, its clear that trevor noah, stephen colbert and current year man are complete shills for democrats.

There is no media outlet that can freely say what they want to say...why would there be?

Absolutely every media outlet has somebody funding it, and what the person funding it says is the truth is treated as the truth. These things don't exist to entertain or inform you. They're just tools used by the ruling elite in their endless internal squabbles. If the information provided by one media outlet differs from another it's only because the interests of the owners differ. Really fires off some neurons.

Here's a little test to see if the media has any narrative to push. I don't want to turn this into some politics thread I'd find on Sup Forums (even given their usual shitpost threads, they do have decent politics discussion here and there).

Whether you agree with him or not is irrelevant. Just throw your politic ideology aside for a second to conduct this test.

Think back to all coverage of Donald Trump on any network of your choosing, or all of them would be more accurate. Now try and think of one segment that showed Donald Trump in a positive light. Especially before the election actually happened.

It weird, right? You could probably name a few, especially if you actually digged. But the vast majority of coverage of Donald Trump before the election was negative. From some shitty non-issue scandal, to past business dealings, past marriages, or meanie doodoo head words he said 30 years ago. I'm not saying he isn't a man without fault, I'm objectively looking at the coverage on him, as a reflection of the mainstream media's bias. Again, whether you like Donald Trump or not, you can surely see the media bias against him. I'm not defending him at all. This is about the media and their obvious bias and obvious narrative pushing. They aren't media in my eyes. They're propaganda.

>everything that goes wrong is the Russians fault
Is this the part where you call everyone who disagrees with you a nazi?

Did they force you to stay by a blood contract, or did you volunteer to stay a virgin in a dark basement for your god queen (D Brock)

You're right. They've been exposed and it will be a long time before they recover as anything other than fake news.

frontpagemag.com/fpm/265043/james-okeefe-mainstream-media-dead-we-won-frontpagemagcom

That's true, but you also need to consider their insatiable desire for ratings. Yes, they covered him negatively, but they also covered him a hell of a lot. Clearly the negative coverage didn't hurt him. I'm not saying they didn't want to hurt him. They did. They're mostly east coast liberals. But as the campaigns dragged on and it became clear that their negative coverage wasn't harming him and instead might have been helping him, they still didn't stop. That's not solely due to incompetent propaganda, it also has to do with the desire for ratings. Trump meant good ratings and Trump scandals - real or manufactured - meant even better ratings.

>Leslie Moonves can appreciate a Donald Trump candidacy.
>Not that the CBS executive chairman and CEO might vote for the Republican presidential frontrunner, but he likes the ad money Trump and his competitors are bringing to the network.
>"It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS," he said of the presidential race.
>Moonves called the campaign for president a "circus" full of "bomb throwing," and he hopes it continues.
hollywoodreporter.com/news/leslie-moonves-donald-trump-may-871464

Do you think this test would work for Clinton?
Because I honestly don't remember any coverage on clinton that wasn't "we don't like donald, so oh well I guess"
Which isn't a positive light

I'm sure if you digged, you could find something. But if you can't come up with anything off the top of your head, obviously that means something, right?

Is it the "media"s job to be unbiased or to represent the ideas of their viewers?

That's probably the least surprising leak of the year.

Who needs facts when you have outrage

>That's true, but you also need to consider their insatiable desire for ratings.
Which is part of their motive. You have a point. Covering Trump at all, helps ratings. If they can push a narrative a bit while doing so, why not?

>Do you think this test would work for Clinton?
Possibly. I saw after Bernie got cheated out of the nomination, the entire narrative going from "Bernie is our man!" to "I'm with Hillary!" pretty quickly though. Sure, media coverage is like you just outlined but I did see a lot of late night shows push Hillary after she clinched the Democrat nomination. muh vagina and all that. Again, this isn't about who we support. It's about the media's obvious bias.

How would you rank these guys now: Conan, Fallon, Oliver, Colbert, Stewart, Letterman*

Yeah, back when Stewart was producing his show and Stewart's writers were giving him scripts.

1. Stewart
2. Letterman
3. Conan

4. Fallon
5. Oliver

6. Colbert

They all have their niche and something they're good at, even John "It's 2016!" Oliver occasionally has interesting segments (like the one about infrastructure, or cops being able to seize your cash whenever they feel like it). But Colbert? What's his thing? What does he do?

Who the fuck cares lol

How is it bias if it's true?

Fuck off back to Russia you commie piece of shit

mmh that the good old "muh russia" tactic doesn´t seem to work how about you try screaming about "fake news" again?

>it's not shoddy unethical biased journalism, it's comedy

>If they can push a narrative a bit while doing so, why not?

You're only calling it a narrative because of your own bias.

>destroying the legacy of the Late Show

gg colbert

Shouldn't you be shooting up a pædiatrian coffee shop right now?

>0.02 rubles have been deposited into your wifes' son's account

There is quite literally nothing wrong with being a Russian and Russia is no longer communist unfortunately.

Why do pol SJWs think they can add victim complex fan fiction to fact and it just becomes more fact?

>There is quite literally nothing wrong with being a Russian

LOL

>"It's 2016!"
You mean 2015?

>watching the john stewart phoney republican parody.

"I hope you got a chance to see The Colbert Reports' two special episodes I had them do"

-sent by "[email protected]"

It certainly sounds like the Clintons are telling Colbert what to put on his show.

most of the things said about Trump were objectively true. imo the media went pretty easy on him. CNN would broadcast his rallies in full, with no commentary early in the campaign cycle

>implying the democrats aren't supported by modern day larping commie faggots

Ur a dumb cunt my man

>wikileaks.ru

Thanks for correcting the record!

my record stands corrected

Shut up you dumb context-providing faggot, can't you see we're trying to circlejerk about liberals over here?

Washington Post outs Wikileaks as russian propaganda.
>T-thats right, that's what my jewish overlords said to me! It must be true!
Good goyim!

Why do liberals think Russia of all places is behind everything?

>da joos!

lel

Howcome wikileaks doesn't leak anything from Russia anymore?

> spend years leaking highly classified documents from all corners of the globe just to frame a pro Democrat talk show host as being pro democrat

Not a productive use of time by Assange.

Then again he is Australian

Hello Ivan, you have to go back.

Because a bunch of aged policy wonks think the Cold War never ended and they were the ones instructing the Clinton campaign.

I'm like 90% sure that the Russians are the American left's Muslims: a vague threat given more credence and power than they actually have in order to mobilize their base against a common outside threat.

It's surreal to watch happen as someone who lived through and was politically aware during the Bush administration, because I distinctly remember the left wing portraying itself as the enlightened body resisting making overarching statements about designated "enemy groups" because to do so is to simplify conflict and play into tribalist propaganda.

Now I'm watching democrats on my social media feed treating the Slavs like Sup Forums treats the Jews. It's insane.

you lost

The ruling class doesn't like Russia, and right now the ruling class represents liberals

>because I distinctly remember the left wing portraying itself as the enlightened body resisting making overarching statements about designated "enemy groups" because to do so is to simplify conflict and play into tribalist propaganda.

And if you lived through the Bush Administration then you know that was always bullshit, because the left had no problem demonizing all Evangelical Christians and rural people in general.

> Donald Trump is working for the Russians

> Donald Trump is a racist

All as dumb and fake as the comet ping pong crap.

All given various leeway in the mainstream media.

Trump was new the political game and at this point his only mark on the world was through pop-culture. There hadn't been any real in depth look into his past besides the shit he would say on TV. So it's not surprising the media jumped all over him because he made for good ratings due to how polarizing he is. Think back to the media when Sarah Palin got picked for VP. Up to that point she was an unknown to the political world despite being then governor of Alaska. Once she got onto the big stage however, everything on her was displayed for everyone to analyse.

>Shillbert

well since the leaks were 100% real they couldn't really argue against them, so instead they'd blame it on russia, which no one believed except the media of course.

>le evil russians

>Now I'm watching democrats on my social media feed treating the Slavs like Sup Forums treats the Jews.

I wonder who could be behind this post

WOW WHO COULD HAVE GUESSED

At least the pizza thing has "credible" conspiracy theory fodder. No one actually believes the Trump shit, it's just ammo

> tfw Liberals literally believe Russian Communist Nazi Frogs rigged the election

> tfw the Washington Post cries about Fake News while reporting that Ron Paul is a soviet sleeper agent and cites anonymous Bernie mods on reddit as their source

Best timeline confirmed.

as if there was ever any doubt.

Sorry Paco, but your meal ticket just expired.

was letterman ever as political is colbert is? I remember back when i was younger and i'd watch his show in passing, and sometimes when he'd make a joke he'd actually get booed, i dont think that's ever happened with colbert, he's too much of a pussy.

thanks for correcting the record

> credible

Your schizophrenia is not credible.

wow i am shocked

You have to go back

>But Colbert? What's his thing? What does he do?

He's trying to take the late night opinionated news satire and combine it with the late night talk show.

> the leaks are real therefore it must be Russia

> the leaks are fake therefore it must be Russia

Stop toying with my emotions, lib shills,

Mmm just like the kid who leaked these caught two bullets in the back during a "robbery gone bad" yet the robbers didn't even take his phone, wallet, or watch---in fact no forensic evidence was left! How odd!

I used to think that CTR were primarily just shitposters, but after seeing this thread im not so sure

Look at this face. Is this the face of a man who would subvert American democracy and push for an incompetent isolationist who has advocated staying out of Russia's hegemonical pursuits?

Of course not.

That's because the Democrats are fucking morons. Think about what they just did. They ran an establishment candidate in the year of populism. They couldn't even countenance the idea that the public wouldn't accept Clinton, when anybody on the ground could have told them that she's universally despised. They even found ways to prop up Trump as the Republican nominee because they thought he would be easy to beat. They're arrogant idiots who think they're pragmatic, centrist Machiavellians, when really they're just unprincipled bureaucrats. So because Trump was enjoying success by talking about Muslims, Mexicans and so on, they decided to introduce their own outside threat, the Russians. Of course they weren't going to take the high road by refusing to scapegoat. It has nothing to do with principles. Fuck, Clinton wouldn't even talk about her policies toward the end. She had absolutely no reason to seek the Presidency. She had no desire to change things and anybody could see that. It was just the logical next move in her career. Who the fuck would vote for that? The Democratic Party is a mess.

This, It's pretty bizarro that the media will give trump shit for lying and pushing half-truths but then when clinton does it it's totally fine, after his run the MSM will probably be dead

>when anybody on the ground could have told them that she's universally despised.

She wasn't until the people on the ground were told to despise her by social media and RT

>meanwhile, the thread is still up

yknow what? keep thinking that, i fucking hate democrats anyway and want their party destroyed

>I'm like 90% sure that the Russians are the American left's Muslims
nope white straight men are the muslims/jews of the left

I bet you think Hillary is a warmonger who would have started WW3 too.

>Wikileaks
Does anyone take them seriously anymore? Remember when they were supposed to put Hillary in jail?

You....understand what social media is right?

>Does anyone take them seriously anymore?

Russia Today tells them to