world

Republicans to TV networks: Don't 'promote' Clinton

40 Comments

The Republican Party on Monday threatened to prevent two U.S. television networks from carrying party primary debates if they don't abandon planned documentaries on Hillary Clinton.

NBC Entertainment is planning a miniseries and CNN is working on a documentary about the Democratic former secretary of state as she mulls a potential run for the White House in 2016.

"As an American company, you have every right to air programming of your choice," Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus wrote to CNN president Jeff Zucker and NBC Entertainment chairman Robert Greenblatt.

"But as American citizens, certainly you recognize why many are astounded at your actions, which appear to be a major network's thinly veiled attempt at putting a thumb on the scales of the 2016 presidential election."

Clinton, a former first lady and U.S. senator whose turn as America's top diplomat earned her widespread praise, is seen as the clear Democratic frontrunner for president.

She has made no announcement of her political plans but the RNC letters -- more than three years ahead of the 2016 election -- show the party's nervousness about a run by Clinton, who narrowly lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama in 2008.

"Your credibility as a supposedly unbiased news network will most certainly be jeopardized by the decision to show political favoritism and produce an extended commercial for secretary Clinton's nascent campaign," Priebus told Zucker.

In a separate statement, Priebus blasted the networks, saying "their actions to promote Secretary Clinton are disturbing and disappointing."

Should CNN and NBC not agree to pull the productions before the RNC holds its summer meeting beginning Aug 14, Priebus told the networks he will seek a binding RNC vote "stating that the committee will neither partner with you in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates which you sponsor."

CNN responded by urging the RNC in a statement to not make "premature decisions about a project that is in the very early stages of development and months from completion."

The broadcaster also said it would be odd if the RNC declines to host Republican debates, saying that limiting such participation would "be the ultimate disservice to voters."

NBC issued a statement simply saying "NBC News is completely independent of NBC Entertainment and has no involvement in this project."

NBC Entertainment announced in July it was producing "Hillary," a four-part miniseries starring Diane Lane.

CNN's film division said it has commissioned a feature-length documentary by Academy Award-winning director Charles Ferguson that will run in theaters in 2014 before airing on the cable station.

© (C) 2013. AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

40 Comments
Login to comment

A new law should be voted so Fox News only is able to deal with politics.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

@TumbleDry, yes that would be a funny law! Only Fox News Network to be allowed to "deal with politics" and heaven forbid if the other networks try to give the other side of the opinion. These Republicans are real funny! But seriously, Mrs.Clinton is a bit too old to become the first woman president and her health is not the best, so good intentions but the Democrats better get younger, healthier candidates, me thinks.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

“But as American citizens, certainly you recognize why many are astounded at your actions,...."

Pot, meet kettle. Or at least, that would be the case if this were simply hypocrisy and not flat out attempts at Chinese-style censorship.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

How about a law with fair and balanced news from all networks. TO many agendas on news in USA. News programs SHOULD be neutral and no bias from them.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

flat out attempts at Chinese-style censorship.

Pfffffffffthahaha... Chinese-style censorship? Until the government owns the news agencies and only lets them show pro-state brainwashing propaganda, you don't really have any right to use that term.

The article's title is...somewhat misleading. There is no legal action being taken or proposed against any network, here. The Repblican is saying that if CNN goes through with their plans to do something the RNC sees as promoting a very likely Democratic candidate, they won't agree to do any debates hosted or sponsored by CNN. That's it. They aren't going to block any broadcast nor censor anything.

Honestly, some of their outrage is understandable, did you see the debates from last year? Let's all be honest with ourselves: The majority of the mainstream media has been at least somewhat liberally-slanted for quite a long time, now. Not many so overt as MSNBC, but all to some degree. Why do you think FOX news makes more money than any other news network? They're the ONLY NETWORK that caters to a conservative viewer base. It just bothers me when the people who lambaste FOX say nothing about MSNBC, which is pretty much equally biased as FOX, just in the opposite political direction.

How about a law with fair and balanced news from all networks.

As long as there is more money to be made from telling people what they WANT to hear rather than what they SHOULD hear, this will never happen. This is why I never watch the news, anymore.

FOX News: "SOMETHING BAD HAPPENED AND IT'S THE DEMOCRATS' FAULT" Other networks: "SOMETHING BAD HAPPENED AND IT'S THE REPUBLICANS' FAULT"

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Wow, I thought ham radio was cutting edge for news. What is this teevee all the whippersnappers are talking about?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's keep in mind that these are the same hypocritical snakes who tried to foist Hillary: The Movie on the American public in January of 2008 during the start of the Democratic primaries. Thumb on the scales, indeed.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

In other news, who would want to watch a miniseries about Hillary?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

"Clinton, a former first lady and U.S. senator whose turn as America’s top diplomat earned her widespread praise, is seen as the clear Democratic frontrunner for president."

What about Vice President Joe Biden?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the series is made, it better include the seedy history in Arkansas. Hillary was part of Entreated lest anyone forget.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Wow - talk about thin-skinned. "If you don't play by our rules, we'll take away the ball and go home." Next thing you know, they'll threaten the NFL into refusing to cooperate with an effort to publicize a duly-passed law, the ACA.

Oh, wait - they've already done that.

Ah, well - at least they can still vote to defund an organization that hasn't existed for years, ACORN, once again. Seriously, once you think that the GOP can't get any nuttier, they astound with their creativity.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

This just sounds crazy to me, but I can't say I'm surprised. Republicans are only capable of trying to change the rules since they have 0 new ideas. Apparently their new brilliant plan is to strong-arm media outlets to get them to change their programming.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Right, and Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin are on the payroll at Fox News. No problem with that even though Palin my run for Senate and both of them have run for the highest offices in the USA. Fox news is nothing but a 24 by 7 propaganda fake news organization for the republicans. It has been that way since day one. Average age of fox viewer, 65, color, white, temperament, angry, voting, republican. The media has and will always be right wing as it is controlled by corporations. Radio, 99% right wing, Newspapers, with a few exceptions, 90 percent right wing, TV 90% right wing too. And NBC is going to series on the most interesting woman in politics in a generation and the republicans cry boohoo, we are going to take our ball and go home.. So very, very typical. Liberals do not watch much TV anyway, we know where there are real new sources. TV news is mostly useless. Fox new makes people stupid as survey after survey has shown.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Ready for Hillary ! It's HER time ! Madam President, GET USED TO IT !

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Well said zurcronium

The media has and will always be right wing as it is controlled by corporations. Radio, 99% right wing, Newspapers, with a few exceptions, 90 percent right wing, TV 90% right wing too. And NBC is going to series on the most interesting woman in politics in a generation and the republicans cry boohoo, we are going to take our ball and go home.

And lets not forget the swiftboating of Kerry and "2016 Obamas America" by Dinesh D'Souza and Gerald Molen.

Thank you FCC for not doing your job and kissing the asses of the media corporations.

Another clear example of this is the silence of the corporate run media concerning Fukushima.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

CNN and NBC endorsing a Democratic candidate for president? This is news? Well, allow me to retort!

"Duh!"

If the GOP wants to further distance itself from the American populace, they can, and I hope they bring a shovel: they'll need it to dig their own graves. Maybe it would be a better idea to focus on finding someone actually electable to run for president, as all they have to do is run against Obama (the same way Obama ran against Bush, not literally of course, but you get the idea). It's like they want to hand the vote to the Dems already.

Whatever. It's why I live over here. Can't say I miss American "politics."

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Well, CNN isn't worth watching except for hurricanes, and then only for a little while, because they start sending their reporters out into the rain, where you can't hear them. And then, they spend more of every hour on self-promoting blurbs like "beyond borders" ad nauseum.

Still, I'll watch Hillary just to annoy the Republicans, and I really don't like her all that much. I'm sure she'll be running against someone who wants to repeal all government, pay no taxes, mint gold in the basement, and shoot anyone who gets in the way.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The Rep Uncles are making Clinton's campaign, like they got Obama elected. The problem is there are big chances that she is not going to run.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Pfffffffffthahaha... Chinese-style censorship?

FOX is worse. You get berated on live TV for actually saying that Obama is on the verge of winning the presidency, even if the stats say so.

Don't worry, maybe Fox could make a mini-series on a range of other women:

Michele 'I married a gay but shush' Bachmann,

Ann 'excess radiation operates as a cancer vaccine!!!!!!' Coultier,

Sarah 'Africa is a country' Palin

and Michelle 'I was white in my former life' Malkin.

It'll all be comedy, though, of course.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Fox News Network or the Fascist News Network. It Murdock control of politician especially on the right. Not as successful as the Guardian in the UK. Just don't trust anything own by him.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The Republican Party on Monday threatened to prevent two U.S. television networks from carrying party primary debates if they don’t abandon planned documentaries on Hillary Clinton.

What took Republicans so long to figure out that the old media is actually an arm of the Democrat party? Was it Candy Crowley's two against one debate "moderator" performance? Was Dan Rather's made from whole cloth propaganda against W? Or perhaps it was Walter Cronkite's surrender on behalf of the US during the Vietnam war when the Tet Offensive was actually a huge failure for the Commies? All one has to do is listen to the questions that are asked in the debates. Republicans are asked questions that are designed to attack them and Democrats are asked questions that are designed to support their point of view - or at least avoid their vulnerabilities.

I am not really in the position to tell Republicans what they should be doing but maybe they should consider bypassing the Liberal media. They aren't the only game in town anymore. Besides, the Democrats won't do debates on Fox why should Republicans debate on CNN or NBC or any of those other so-called "news" organizations.

It's also ironic that Democrats would be in favor of a movie supporting HillRod right before an election when there were so opposed to a movie against her right before her 2008 run.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@super

This just sounds crazy to me, but I can't say I'm surprised. Republicans are only capable of trying to change the rules since they have 0 new ideas. Apparently their new brilliant plan is to strong-arm media outlets to get them to change their programming.

Oh, and the Dems have GREAT ideas. The last 5 years have been a total disaster and we still have 3 to go with this President!! You have 23 million Americans out of work, Black and Latino unemployed over 14% GDP is under 2%, Ben Bernanke is just printing more and more money. We are spending more than we are taking in, Al Qaeda is regrouping, Russia takes Obama for a joke. Obamacare is in shambles, NO ONE wants it! Apparently, these bright NEW and YOUNG ideas was exceptionally brilliant??? All these so called great ideas and what did we get? One huge Disaster cluster..... When Obama and Dems campaigned on Hope and Change, they weren't kidding.

Fox News Network or the Fascist News Network. It Murdock control of politician especially on the right. Not as successful as the Guardian in the UK. Just don't trust anything own by him.

As a former employee of FOX and NBC, how is it facist? First of all Murdock has nothing to do with FOX, except that he owns it, that's it. He doesn't make any of the daily business decisions that happen at FOX, it's Roger Ailes You don't have to trust the network there are millions that do. You can always read and follow Ariana and the Daily Kos.

@zur

Right, and Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin are on the payroll at Fox News. No problem with that even though Palin my run for Senate and both of them have run for the highest offices in the USA. Fox news is nothing but a 24 by 7 propaganda fake news organization for the republicans.

Sorry, been debunked. FOX gives both sides liberal and conservative respectively equal time, also there are many, many liberals that work at FOX unlike CNN or NBC where if you are a conservative and want to bring a different POV to the topic of discussion, you will most likely be excoriated. If you want to know real propaganda to its core, sorry it's not FOX, it's not even CNN, but NBC and msnbc.... I lived and worked in that echo chamber, I know first hand.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Or perhaps it was Walter Cronkite's surrender on behalf of the US during the Vietnam war when the Tet Offensive...

Now that is really weird. Cronkite is being offered here as an example of a major network being "an arm of the Democrat party." The problem is that Cronkite made his broadcast on Tet in February of 1968, while the Democrat, LBJ, was still in office and holding fast to his Vietnam policy. Later that year, the party nominated as its candidate a man who also supported the war. Sheer Looney Tunes.

Republicans are asked questions that are designed to attack them...

LOL!! If their answers weren't so stupid and clueless, perhaps the questions would not appear like attacks. The part I love is when the Republican candidates ask each other questions. Talk about your attacks and utter buffoonery!

Democrats are asked questions that are designed to support their point of view - or at least avoid their vulnerabilities

You mean like President Obama's birth certificate? The Clinton "death list?" .. and other Fox bizarro stuff that is so consistently and pathetically dumb.

I am not really in the position to tell Republicans what they should be doing but maybe they should consider bypassing the Liberal media.

Please Republicans. Please listen to your inbred followers. Do not try to put your message out to a wider audience so that a majority of Americans can see you've got nothing going for you except delusion and fantasies. Keep kissing off the 47% the way Romney did. (Show us how you can afford to kiss off even more next time!) Please!

Besides, the Democrats won't do debates on Fox why should Republicans debate on CNN or NBC

LOL! The difference is between stepping into a gutter and stepping out of one.

It's also ironic that Democrats would be in favor of a movie supporting HillRod right before an election when there were so opposed to a movie against her right before her 2008 run.

January 2008 was the start of the Democratic primaries. What is really ironic is how the Republicans were hoping that their movie would destroy Hillary's candidacy so that they could run against the black guy. Well, they got their wish, and we all know how well their brilliant plan worked out. But why would the same Republicans who were so OK with a Hillary smear in January of 2008 be so opposed to some other media outlet taking a crack at the subject before any candidate has yet announced?

Two word answer: craven hypocrisy.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

stupid and clueless...utter buffoonery...pathetically dumb...inbred followers

It's always amusing to see how if you removed the statements that you pass off as arguments which are pure insults, your posts would be consistently much, much shorter.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

LOL!! If their answers weren't so stupid and clueless, perhaps the questions would not appear like attacks. The part I love is when the Republican candidates ask each other questions. Talk about your attacks and utter buffoonery!

Funny, I love how liberals always walk with this halo as if they were the actual chosen. When conservatives do something out of line, it's seen as unacceptable but when Weiner sends photos of his privates gets caught runs for mayor with the utmost audacity and Spitzer pays over 4 grand to a call girl and the mayor of San Diego touching EVERY single woman that comes within inches in front of his face and asks them if they should come to work without panties. Liberals call the Fort hood shooting an act of a disgruntled working and on and on. Liberals are so perfect and flawless, I see. Lol!! hypocrites doesn't come to mind? Naaaaaaaaaw!

You mean like President Obama's birth certificate? The Clinton "death list?" .. and other Fox bizarro stuff that is so consistently and pathetically dumb.

NOT unlike Keith Olbermann's nightly rant on Bush, the sheer nastiness and vitriol that spewed from his mouth, not only that, but msnbc as a rule. Shultz openly saying how he wanted to rip out Cheney's heart, kick it around alike a football and stuff it back in, this after the man had surgery or when Shultz called Laura Ingram on FOX and called her a "slut" when liberals attack, they either use the race card, say THE most outrageous and nastiest things. No wonder the network keeps losing anchors and shows constantly being canceled. NOT pathetically dumb, inconceivable idiocy!

Please Republicans. Please listen to your inbred followers. Do not try to put your message out to a wider audience so that a majority of Americans can see you've got nothing going for you except delusion and fantasies. Keep kissing off the 47% the way Romney did. (Show us how you can afford to kiss off even more next time!) Please!

Hey, all you have to do is look at the last 5 years of how America has been progressing and the report so far is a D-! So even with liberal pure blood (LMAO) the country has 23 million still unemployed, Blacks are at an even worst state. Blacks that keep voting for the party that for the last 50 years has made their lives worse and the numbers reflect that.

LOL! The difference is between stepping into a gutter and stepping out of one.

When I was working for NBC, I can honestly say, I was deeply in the gutter for years.

January 2008 was the start of the Democratic primaries. What is really ironic is how the Republicans were hoping that their movie would destroy Hillary's candidacy so that they could run against the black guy. Well, they got their wish, and we all know how well their brilliant plan worked out. But why would the same Republicans who were so OK with a Hillary smear in January of 2008 be so opposed to some other media outlet taking a crack at the subject before any candidate has yet announced?

Liberals and Dems take crack shots at Conservatives and Republicans ALL THE TIME, now if they do it, it's a criminal act??

Hmmm, Obama did a great job smearing Hilary, between the two during the primaries the hate between the two became legendary and without the interference of Republicans. Regardless, Hilary would have still made a better candidate and a President than Obama. I am NOT a Hilary fan (so I guess that makes me sexist) but I think she would have govern better and she has real experience, unlike Obama that didn't hold ANY office or governed ANYTHING. The people voted and look what we got.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Funny, I love how liberals always walk with this halo as if they were the actual chosen.

If there's a halo, it must be there only by contrast.... And here we go:

When conservatives do something out of line, it's seen as unacceptable but when Weiner sends photos of his privates gets caught runs for mayor with the utmost audacity

Can you say "Vitter?" (I knew you could.) And there's no Democrat supporting Weiner. Who cares about him? Are you bringing this stuff up just to take things way off the topic, as is your custom? Why not try answering some of the questions, like this one:

If it was so right for Republicans to bring out a hack piece on Hillary on the eve of the Democratic primaries in January of 2008, why is it so wrong for media companies to do a piece on her before any candidate has officially announced? Can you answer that? Why was it so right for them to bring out their attack piece at that time, and wrong for CNN do work on a piece three years before the election? Do try and answer that, rather than drifting off to idiotic asides.

When I was working for NBC, I can honestly say, I was deeply in the gutter for years.

And you never left it, and it shows.

Obama did a great job smearing Hilary

Delusional. He did no such thing, and you're still in your gutter. About the worst thing he said to her was "Your likable enough." Some smear. When a campaign worker made a disparaging remark about Hillary, Obama removed her from the campaign immediately.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If there's a halo, it must be there only by contrast.... And here we go:

Oh, but if that were really true....

Can you say "Vitter?" (I knew you could.) And there's no Democrat supporting Weiner. Who cares about him?

They were, even after he came forward with his indiscretions. NOW the Dems are running away from him like crazy! Instead of distancing themselves the first time, they chose to stay with him, amazing, but seeing after the latest revelations, they finally woke up from the Kool-aid sweetness and were hit with a dose of reality. But yes, the people DO care, especially NY, but he went from 1st to 4th place, go figure.

Are you bringing this stuff up just to take things way off the topic, as is your custom?

No, Yabits, I leave that to you with you liberal blinds and trying to remind you to take them off every once in awhile to be able to see the reality of things.

Why not try answering some of the questions, like this one:

If it was so right for Republicans to bring out a hack piece on Hillary on the eve of the Democratic primaries in January of 2008, why is it so wrong for media companies to do a piece on her before any candidate has officially announced?

Are you serious? Asking me that kind of a lame question?! Libs wrote the book on doing hit pieces and bringing up the past. Finally, Obama has stopped for the most part in blaming Bush for his constant failures, it took about 5 years, but it takes for some people a long time to learn. But hey, this is politics (ask Hilary) you do what you got to do to win and if you think your liberal buddies are honest during the campaigns and primaries, I have a ship to sell you.

Why was it so right for them to bring out their attack piece at that time, and wrong for CNN do work on a piece three years before the election? Do try and answer that, rather than drifting off to idiotic asides.

That is a nutshell of your answer. Been covering politics for over 15 years and it's ALL dirty and both parties will take advantage of it, YES, even the liberals lie, imagine that!

And you never left it, and it shows.

NBC, the gutter? Yup, left it.

Delusional. He did no such thing, and you're still in your gutter. About the worst thing he said to her was "Your likable enough." Some smear. When a campaign worker made a disparaging remark about Hillary, Obama removed her from the campaign immediately.

Uh, NOT true, but I Thought you might say that. There are more. But that's beside the point, it's politics and both sides play dirty, if you want to stick your head in the sand that is your prerogative.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

They were, even after he came forward with his indiscretions.

And Republicans are still with Vitter.

Are you serious? Asking me that kind of a lame question?

Yes. Completely serious. Look at the topic. Why are Republicans opposed to media companies developing material about the former First Lady and Secretary of State at a time when no candidate has yet announced? Especially when these same Republicans wanted to present an attack piece on her on the very eve of the Democratic primaries.

Why are the Republicans doing this? Is it a lame question because you can't explain it? What really appears lame is how you have tried to dance around it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why are the Republicans doing this? Is it a lame question because you can't explain it? What really appears lame is how you have tried to dance around it.

For the same reasons that the liberals would oppose Jebb Bush should he run in 2016 which is a real possibility. And if you believe Dems wouldn't do the opposite, you are sadly, very sadly mistaken. I am not going to quiver with you about right and wrong about what the Repubs are doing to Hilary. They don't like her, they don't like Obama and why should they?? They are REPUBLICANS and have different ideologies, they are conservatives, NOT liberals. They are diametrically opposed to one another, their policies and worldly viewpoints. They don't want to see another 4 or 8 years of looney liberal failed policies. I would do the exact same thing if I were a politician, they would do it to me, so why not?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For the same reasons that the liberals would oppose Jebb Bush should he run in 2016 which is a real possibility.

Huh? If you are claiming that Democrats would oppose, threaten or coerce a conservative network for doing a piece on Jeb Bush, you are 100% wrong. (Par for the course.) You can't come up with one single example of how Democrats have ever tried this un-American tactic on a network.

I am not going to quiver with you about right and wrong about what the Repubs are doing to Hilary.

I believe the word is "quibble." And it is not what the Republicans are doing to Hillary. It is what the Republican leadership is trying to do to private media companies. Like would-be dictators everywhere, they want to control the messages sent out, not only about themselves, but about their opponents. Any piece on Hillary Clinton that shows her positive accomplishments is to be thwarted.

They are REPUBLICANS and have different ideologies, they are conservatives, NOT liberals.

Yes, and it used to be that Republicans would never stoop to this kind of coercion. It used to be that they believed in freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

I would do the exact same thing if I were a politician, they would do it to me, so why not?

No. Not all politicians would join you in your gutter. Some do have principles. And it's getting progressively more difficult for progressive Republicans to speak out and not get attacked by the far right wing ideologues. More than a few are speaking out on Reince Priebus's totally un-American attempt at forcing private media companies. to toe their party line.

The way the Democrats handled the 2008 attack piece Hillary: The Movie was textbook on how it should be done in the United States: First of all, no Democrat attempted to coerce anyone not to produce the piece. That would be un-American. Prior to the first scheduled airing, members of the DNC actually look over the material. Finding potential violations of laws on that type of influence on the eve of primaries, they took it to a court of law, which agreed with their findings, and forced the network to postpone the airing.

We all know why the RNC would never attempt to take this to court: With three years to go before an election and no announced candidates, they'd be laughed right out of it. And so they have to try veiled threats. At this rate, the Republican brand is going to be compared with thalidomide and Fen-Fen for sheer toxicity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Huh? If you are claiming that Democrats would oppose, threaten or coerce a conservative network for doing a piece on Jeb Bush, you are 100% wrong. (Par for the course.) You can't come up with one single example of how Democrats have ever tried this un-American tactic on a network.

Yup, sure can. Msnbc. With Jeb's brother, it became a daily obsession, same as with McCain and Palin. Every single day, it's out there and why? To discredit FOX, Phil Griffin is constantly trying and trying and every time has failed miserably. At least CNN learned and with new management, they're getting better, but NBC has gotten worse. So I gave you my former employer, should be more than enough examples to go to the moon and back 50 times.

I believe the word is "quibble."

Sorry, my baf.

And it is not what the Republicans are doing to Hillary. It is what the Republican leadership is trying to do to private media companies.

The same way liberals are doing it to many of our educational institutions, print media, television and sadly, unsuccessfully radio?

Like would-be dictators everywhere, they want to control the messages sent out, not only about themselves, but about their opponents.

Obama has been doing a great job at that and still nothing to show, only that, he's the first African American President, that's the highest and ONLY true achievements that he can really call his own.

Any piece on Hillary Clinton that shows her positive accomplishments is to be thwarted.

Like NY city as a former senator? Benghazi? Ahhh, yes, positive indeed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yup, sure can. Msnbc

You have not provided any example. Kindly read the article again. It's about how the leadership of the Republican Party is attempting to coerce private media companies like CNN into not developing programming on Hillary Clinton.

When has any Democrat attempted to coerce a network into not developing a program on any Republican?

The same way liberals are doing it to many of our educational institutions, print media

When has any leader of the Democratic Party attempted to coerce an educational institution or print media into not developing or presenting material on any political figure?

You don't have any specific examples, now do you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@yabits

You have not provided any example. Kindly read the article again. It's about how the leadership of the Republican Party is attempting to coerce private media companies like CNN into not developing programming on Hillary Clinton.

Why not? The media is NOT there to promote ideology and to play partisan politics! This is the problem with the liberal media and liberals in general, since they control 98% what we watch and in particular, politics. Neither NBC nor CNN would ever do the same for a conservative candidate. What makes Hilary so special? We all know her, what she stands for, her policies and what her visions are for the future. We had 12 years of Hilary, as the first lady for 8 and as Secretary of state for 4 and now we need to make a movie to actively promote a candidate in that style of fashion? I know full well, if ANY of the networks or even FOX were to do the same, the outcry would be thunderous. Hypocrisy at its absolute worst.

When has any Democrat attempted to coerce a network into not developing a program on any Republican?

Again, they don't have to do it like that in that manner, but they do disparage and over 80% of msnbc coverage is ALWAYS opinionated vitriol against conservatives and NOT news. Therefore, it equates to virtually political personal attacks. Which doesn't even come close to Priebus asking for a halt in the production of this crap.

When has any leader of the Democratic Party attempted to coerce an educational institution or print media into not developing or presenting material on any political figure?

You don't have any specific examples, now do you?

I do. There are too many examples to elaborate on. But I will say in the educational dept. in many colleges and universities across the country, liberal ideology is constantly pushed as being the mainstream and where kids have NO choice but to accept and be indoctrinated by liberal standards and are NOT given the choice or voice to allow for decent. As a liberal, you can't or DON'T want to see it, but as a conservative who studied at a traditional university, I saw over the years how the liberals hijacked it and turned a once prestiges institution into a liberal nightmare. Before both political viewpoints were respected and now, the liberal leftist ideology is pushed on them.

That basically equates to the same thing, but on a more massive scale.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why not? The media is NOT there to promote ideology and to play partisan politics!

So you are saying that the media should not bow to the Republican Party's attempt to coerce them. Still, I have not seen an example of how the Democratic Party has ever tried to coerce a network to not produce a program for airing that involves a political figure of any party.

As Hillary Clinton has not announced as a candidate, and it's years before the first primary, what are the Republicans so scared about that they have to resort to this kind of coercion?

Neither NBC nor CNN would ever do the same for a conservative candidate.

But the Democratic Party leadership would not be trying to coerce them, or any network to not develop a program on a candidate or figure from either party.

and now we need to make a movie to actively promote a candidate in that style of fashion?

And this is another big problem: Without even seeing the material, the Republican Party jumps the gun and assumes that it is actively promoting a candidate. And Hillary is not even an official candidate.

Again, they don't have to do it like that in that manner, but they do disparage and over 80% of msnbc coverage is ALWAYS opinionated vitriol against conservatives and NOT news.

The former chair of the Republican Party, Micheal Steele, is a paid contributor to MS-NBC, and I see him on a near daily basis. And, yes, a good many of their pieces are commentary on the ever-rightward drift of the Republican Party, and how difficult it is for Speaker Boehner to keep them together on anything.

But I will say in the educational dept. in many colleges and universities across the country, liberal ideology is constantly pushed...

First of all, it's an insult to anyone who is intelligent enough to achieve a college education to assert they can have an ideology "pushed" on them. What higher learning attempts to do is help develop and exercise a method for inquiry and reasoning. Once a person attempts to remove ideology from the consideration of an issue, it has been my experience that this threatens conservatives far more than it threatens liberals. This is why we see conservatives behind such things as banning books from libraries and coercing networks not to produce shows with certain content. It's today's conservative ideology that can't stand up to critical analysis. So they have to play the victim while lashing out at everything that threatens to expose them.

Essentially, what liberalism is based upon is the goal of enacting policies that will bring the best results to the most people over time. Simple as that. The New Deal policies of FDR and the Democrats resulted in very strong unions, which resulted in the economic pie being sliced more fairly between management and workers, which resulted in a very strong and massive middle class. (The top marginal tax rate was above 90% and the ratio of the top management pay to the average salaried worker was on the order of 50 to 1.)

As a result of the steady Republican assault on unions and the working class, we have all witnessed life getting much, much harder for the average American worker, the national wealth largely being held by a tiny percentage, and a ratio of top management to the salaried worker as several hundred to 1. It's the conservatives who support and defend that status quo. Lowering tax rates and destroying unions is how they achieved it.

What Priebus and the Republicans are doing now in trying to coerce networks and suppress the vote, is admitting they they are getting desperate. The status quo they support is acceptable to fewer and fewer Americans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So you are saying that the media should not bow to the Republican Party's attempt to coerce them.

No, I am saying that the Republicans SHOULD call NBC and CNN on their bias partisan ideologue towards a liberal candidate. At least CNN are trying to hide it and don't wear it on their sleeve like NBC does. They are clearly in the tank for a liberal candidate, NO network should EVER promote ANY candidate like that and if they do, then they should make and give equal time to the opposition.

Still, I have not seen an example of how the Democratic Party has ever tried to coerce a network to not produce a program for airing that involves a political figure of any party.

Again, I have given you enough examples and if you can't identify with them, then thats on you. Then you choose NOT to see and see ONLY what YOU want to see.

As Hillary Clinton has not announced as a candidate, and it's years before the first primary, what are the Republicans so scared about that they have to resort to this kind of coercion?

NOT scared as much as looking at Obama's record since he has been in office is abysmal and Hilary's job performance as SOS has been lack luster to say the least and with this cover up on Benghazi and many others disqualifies she should be heavily challenged. By the way, she will run, that's an almost 90% guarantee.

And this is another big problem: Without even seeing the material, the Republican Party jumps the gun and assumes that it is actively promoting a candidate. And Hillary is not even an official candidate.

Sorry, the vitriol and the disrespect towards Bush on virtually everything he did or stood for was always shot down and even as a candidate to the day of the election. Sorry, Dems don't get a pass on that. They do it as well.

The former chair of the Republican Party, Micheal Steele, is a paid contributor to MS-NBC, and I see him on a near daily basis. And, yes, a good many of their pieces are commentary on the ever-rightward drift of the Republican Party, and how difficult it is for Speaker Boehner to keep them together on anything.

I will say, there is a growing devision between the Libertarian tea party Republicans and the old school McGovern Republicans. I think on many issues Republicans could benefit from moving a bit more center, but they should never give up on their core principles.

First of all, it's an insult to anyone who is intelligent enough to achieve a college education to assert they can have an ideology "pushed" on them.

But it's happening everywhere in many of the college, university institutions.

What higher learning attempts to do is help develop and exercise a method for inquiry and reasoning. Once a person attempts to remove ideology from the consideration of an issue, it has been my experience that this threatens conservatives far more than it threatens liberals.

That's utter and total nonsense. Liberals are trying to stomp out ANY and all vestiges of Christianity and traditional and social values from any student that believes in them or were brought up in that manner as being out of touch with social issues and how it is bad to be judged or to be free and do as you like anytime, anywhere. Boundaries shouldn't exist. With liberals, it's all about the here and now If you believe in God, you are an idiot, if you don't believe in Global warming, you are anti-environment, if you believe in drilling for our own oil to ween us off mideast oil, we are anti-green. Let's not even talk about Christmas.

This is why we see conservatives behind such things as banning books from libraries and coercing networks not to produce shows with certain content.

Sorry, wrong again, working for NBC, just saying you were a conservative was like being the absolute Anti-Christ. Liberals dominate and virtually control ALL aspects of Television and programming. When I was a kid growing up. There was no such thing as cursing, nudity, sex, grotesque violence on TV. Was totally unacceptable. NOT NOW! We have become so desensitized to all of that. If conservatives would have that kind of power in the media, that would never fly. Try again.

It's today's conservative ideology that can't stand up to critical analysis.

So that's the reason why msnbc usually don't show opposing viewpoints and don't usually bring conservatives on? That's why Obama and Holder so often dodge and evade questioning on critical points and issues. Liberals always want to show how smart they are and that, they know how to run government, well, for 2 years Obama controlled all 3 branches of government and how'd that work out? There is a reason why they lost the house.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Again, I have given you enough examples and if you can't identify with them, then thats on you.

No, you have not provided one verifiable example of a Democratic Party leader who has ever attempted to coerce any network into not producing pieces on political figures. Not a single one. Readers can easily verify this. Yours is the method of argument that is all-too typically used by conservatives today. And because it lacks honesty and basic integrity, young people are shunning what passes for the conservative party today in droves. Nobody who has any morals at all wants to associate themselves with groups or people with low integrity.

Fortunately, liberals are easily able to see through the smokescreen and view the Republicans real agenda and intent on this. The Republican Party wants to do everything it can to limit the exposure of its candidates on venues and networks that it does not control. So, it has to concoct this phony controversy in order to provide them with some excuse. It's simply amazing how they want to limit the exposure of their candidates to any serious grilling, as it shows nothing but weakness.

Liberals are trying to stomp out ANY and all vestiges of Christianity and traditional and social values...

There are many liberals, like myself, who are committed to Judeo-Christian values. We happen to view separation of religious congregation from secular state as being extremely important and vital -- for both institutions. We strongly believe that all people should be free to choose the important decisions in their lives with as little coercion as possible from either. When it comes to taking care of those who need it, many of us view that as a shared responsibility of both. If the private sector and organizations can't or won't do it, government has to step in.

there is a growing devision between the Libertarian tea party Republicans and the old school McGovern Republicans.

McGovern Republicans? Oh well, perhaps another reader can make sense of that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So they have to play the victim while lashing out at everything that threatens to expose them.

You mean like Hilary, saying that what difference it makes what happened in Benghazi, the past was the past, let sleeping dogs lay. Now because FOX and surprisingly CNN (thank goodness) are NOT letting her get away from answering and finding out the truth as to what happened. She ignored the families and promised to get back to them and has NOT done that yet. That's real exposure.

Essentially, what liberalism is based upon is the goal of enacting policies that will bring the best results to the most people over time. Simple as that.

Sadly, that hasn't happened, in fact, quite the opposite. Ask the African American community for starters.

The New Deal policies of FDR and the Democrats resulted in very strong unions, which resulted in the economic pie being sliced more fairly between management and workers, which resulted in a very strong and massive middle class. (The top marginal tax rate was above 90% and the ratio of the top management pay to the average salaried worker was on the order of 50 to 1.)

But the economy sucks at least in the major Blue states that voted for Obama, the Red states are doing a lot better, especially Texas, Nebraska, Utah to name a few. So once again, it wasn't liberal policies that worked and saved these states at all.

As a result of the steady Republican assault on unions and the working class, we have all witnessed life getting much, much harder for the average American worker,

Uhh, it's the unions and huge out of control pensions, liberal policies that are KILLING the working class or did you not see what happened to Detroit which is the epicenter for the Unions and over the last 60 years, these liberal policies have been slowly eroding the motor state as they are in California (my home state) which used to have the 7th largest economy in the world, since Liberals ruined it, it has brome the worst state to live in unless you have a 6 figure income.

the national wealth largely being held by a tiny percentage, and a ratio of top management to the salaried worker as several hundred to 1. It's the conservatives who support and defend that status quo. Lowering tax rates and destroying unions is how they achieved it.

Sorry, even if you take ALL the money from the top 3%, it will NOT do Diddley squat to the economy or put a dent in our national debt. No one told Obama to spend my kids future and the Trillion dollar stimulus hasn't worked at all. Creation of jobs in the private sector is the key, but most liberals don't understand that, they think you need to tax your way out of every predicament.

What Priebus and the Republicans are doing now in trying to coerce networks and suppress the vote, is admitting they they are getting desperate. The status quo they support is acceptable to fewer and fewer Americans.

Not getting desperate, this is about fairness. Obama's numbers are doing the talking, the polls have been showing this and all you have to do is look at late night and you can see the comics hammering at Obama which before he was totally off limits. So that tide is turning. Dems are running out of the constant excuses that used to protect them, they had a cake walk and now the chickens are coming home to roost, as Rev. Wright would say.

Again, I have given you enough examples and if you can't identify with them, then thats on you.

No, you have not provided one verifiable example of a Democratic Party leader who has ever attempted to coerce any network into not producing pieces on political figures. Not a single one.

I already did, you are just not seeing it OR want to see the blatant hypocrisy of liberals.

Readers can easily verify this. Yours is the method of argument that is all-too typically used by conservatives today. And because it lacks honesty and basic integrity, young people are shunning what passes for the conservative party today in droves. Nobody who has any morals at all wants to associate themselves with groups or people with low integrity.

Sorry, Yabits, NOT working. All anyone has to do is turn on the TV and it's there right in your face. CNN has gotten better at sometimes allowing conservatives of traditionalists share their POV on politics. Unlike NBC that hated any decent from conservatives on virtually, any level. That's democracy. Pushing a political viewpoint?

Fortunately, liberals are easily able to see through the smokescreen and view the Republicans real agenda and intent on this. The Republican Party wants to do everything it can to limit the exposure of its candidates on venues and networks that it does not control.

Impossible, the Republicans don't want to control anything, they want to just make sure liberals will even the playing field, that's all. Since liberals control TV, movies and print, of course their is unfairness in the media.

So, it has to concoct this phony controversy in order to provide them with some excuse. It's simply amazing how they want to limit the exposure of their candidates to any serious grilling, as it shows nothing but weakness.

LMAO

There are many liberals, like myself, who are committed to Judeo-Christian values. We happen to view separation of religious congregation from secular state as being extremely important and vital -- for both institutions. We strongly believe that all people should be free to choose the important decisions in their lives with as little coercion as possible from either. When it comes to taking care of those who need it, many of us view that as a shared responsibility of both. If the private sector and organizations can't or won't do it, government has to step in.

And look at the last 5 years of Obama BIG government policies, the country is a complete mess. Yeah, the Repubs near the end of Bush's Presidency started the ball rolling, but Obama took it turned it up on steroids.

McGovern Republicans? Oh well, perhaps another reader can make sense of that.

Because Liberals paint EVERYTHING in ONE broad brush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All anyone has to do is turn on the TV and it's there right in your face. CNN has gotten better at sometimes allowing conservatives of traditionalists share their POV on politics. Unlike NBC that hated any decent from conservatives on virtually, any level. That's democracy. Pushing a political viewpoint?

None of that has anything to do with any member of the Democratic Party who attempted to coerce any network with regard to their programming -- because it has never happened. It's pretty clear you don't even know what "an example" is.

Because Liberals paint EVERYTHING in ONE broad brush.

McGovern Republicans?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@yabits

None of that has anything to do with any member of the Democratic Party who attempted to coerce any network with regard to their programming -- because it has never happened. It's pretty clear you don't even know what "an example" is.

Again, you CHOOSE not to see it, the example is on the TV everyday and it especially the liberal vitriol started to get worse in 2000 with Bush, from that point on, liberals started to turn into the whiny political group they are today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the example is on the TV everyday and it especially the liberal vitriol started to get worse in 2000 with Bush,

Just to recap, when asked for an example of how the Democratic Party has tried to coerce networks about their programming, you responded with the above. So you are claiming that the "liberal vitriol" on networks is a result and example of Democratic Party coercion.

Your logic seems to be: "Because their is 'vitriol,' there is coercion." But that doesn't make any sense at all. If a network's bias (from its management) is to have the effect to support liberals and oppose conservatives, why would the Democratic Party be trying to coerce them?

It's clear from the article that Republicans are going to try to punish the networks by not allowing any who air material on Hillary Clinton -- who is not formally a candidate -- the "opportunity" to host Republican primary debates. They made this very clear in a letter to CNN and NBC.

And so, how has the Democratic Party's attempt at coercion been communicated to the networks? And which networks, specifically? Coercion takes the form of "If you do this (or don't do this), then we're going to take the following action.." What is the Democratic Party communicating to the networks, in what form is this formal communication taking place, and what penalties have been stipulated?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites