CNN has hissy fit over Trump gif, bullies 15 year old kid

[Mainecat]

[Jimmy Snacks]

18 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Aren't you always preaching that people should comment on the OP or STFU? 

[Zambroski]

2 minutes ago, Biggie Smails said:

Aren't you always preaching that people should comment on the OP or STFU? 

 

22 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

"WE"RE LOSING AGAIN!!!  WE'RE LOSING AGAIN!!!!   QUICK, ACTIVATE EMERGENCY SPIN/DEFLECT NARRATIVE MEME!!!!!!!"

 

[Jimmy Snacks]

1 minute ago, Zambroski said:

 

"WE"RE LOSING AGAIN!!!  WE'RE LOSING AGAIN!!!!   QUICK, ACTIVATE EMERGENCY SPIN/DEFLECT NARRATIVE MEME!!!!!!!"

 

He is such a fucking dolt with this stuff....hopefully he is just trolling. If not I'm worried for him.

[Zambroski]

1 hour ago, Wildboer said:

Is there any evidence this person is 15 other than Donny Jr's tweet?

Do you realize that people delete their Reddit accounts for fear of being doxxed every single day without any threat from CNN and most of them probably have a less compromising post history than this person?

Is no one going to give them ANY credit for not actually doxxing the person?

And has it even crossed your mind that this person, realizing getting doxxed by CNN could ruin their life, actually offered to apologize and delete their account in exchange for not being doxxed? 

Yeah...you get it.  And it's gross and unethical.  CNN is as pathetic as they can ever be.  The absolute laughing stock.

 

[Zambroski]

2 minutes ago, Biggie Smails said:

He is such a fucking dolt with this stuff....hopefully he is just trolling. If not I'm worried for him.

He can't just be trolling.  Cuz...for this long...and constantly?  He is who he is.  And we get to see it on display.  Hooorraaaaaayyyyy for us!

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

1 hour ago, Wildboer said:

Is there any evidence this person is 15 other than Donny Jr's tweet?

Do you realize that people delete their Reddit accounts for fear of being doxxed every single day without any threat from CNN and most of them probably have a less compromising post history than this person?

Is no one going to give them ANY credit for not actually doxxing the person?

And has it even crossed your mind that this person, realizing getting doxxed by CNN could ruin their life, actually offered to apologize and delete their account in exchange for not being doxxed? 

The problem is the threat of being outed by CNN is a real threat. Any News source should be ashamed that they have so little trust. Why would anyone give them credit for doing the socially called for thing? Should we pat them on the back for not being morally bankrupt and cheer them on for making it known that they thought about it? This person apologized because they were coerced or because of fear of unethical behavior. Both are not the right answer. Don't get me wrong, I guarantee FOX would do the same damn thing.

[Snake]

1 hour ago, Wildboer said:

Is there any evidence this person is 15 other than Donny Jr's tweet?

Do you realize that people delete their Reddit accounts for fear of being doxxed every single day without any threat from CNN and most of them probably have a less compromising post history than this person?

Is no one going to give them ANY credit for not actually doxxing the person?

And has it even crossed your mind that this person, realizing getting doxxed by CNN could ruin their life, actually offered to apologize and delete their account in exchange for not being doxxed? 

"...won't release his name IF.....IF......IF...."

Use your fucking head you twit.

[Rod]

5 minutes ago, Snake said:

"...won't release his name IF.....IF......IF...."

Use your fucking head you twit.

Lol he's never used his head yet why start now 

[Wildboer]

16 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Yeah...you get it.  And it's gross and unethical.  CNN is as pathetic as they can ever be.  The absolute laughing stock.

 

Nah, I still think they're just stupid and inept rather than intentionally malicious like Fox.

4 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

The problem is the threat of being outed by CNN is a real threat. Any News source should be ashamed that they have so little trust. Why would anyone give them credit for doing the socially called for thing? Should we pat them on the back for not being morally bankrupt and cheer them on for making it known that they thought about it? This person apologized because they were coerced or because of fear of unethical behavior. Both are not the right answer. Don't get me wrong, I guarantee FOX would do the same damn thing.

Because doing the socially called for thing is a step in the right direction for them, if we encourage that maybe they'll do it again. Like it's not much, but it's a step in the right direction for them lol

[Snake]

12 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

The problem is the threat of being outed by CNN is a real threat. Any News source should be ashamed that they have so little trust. Why would anyone give them credit for doing the socially called for thing? Should we pat them on the back for not being morally bankrupt and cheer them on for making it known that they thought about it? This person apologized because they were coerced or because of fear of unethical behavior. Both are not the right answer. Don't get me wrong, I guarantee FOX would do the same damn thing.

You sound like Snot now, with all the mind reading and fortune telling.

[Zambroski]

3 minutes ago, Wildboer said:

Nah, I still think they're just stupid and inept rather than intentionally malicious like Fox.

Because doing the socially called for thing is a step in the right direction for them, if we encourage that maybe they'll do it again. Like it's not much, but it's a step in the right direction for them lol

Oh yeah....Fox is the only malicious one.

If I get one 20 minute chance to try and catch some cable news, it is to be Fox.  They are doing BY FAR the best news coverage.  Right biased in politics, sure.  But they still deliver the news.  CNN AND NBC deliver anti-Trump rhetoric and his tweet coverage.

[Wildboer]

9 minutes ago, Snake said:

"...won't release his name IF.....IF......IF...."

Use your fucking head you twit.

His? Has that even been established? Leaving out that if would have been stupid. As it stands they're not releasing the name, but they have the name and they would be stupid not to reserve the right to release it if the person does something worse. 

 

[Wildboer]

4 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Oh yeah....Fox is the only malicious one.

If I get one 20 minute chance to try and catch some cable news, it is to be Fox.  They are doing BY FAR the best news coverage.  Right biased in politics, sure.  But they still deliver the news.  CNN AND NBC deliver anti-Trump rhetoric and his tweet coverage.

MSNBC is benificent because they support my right to identify as a transgender black unicorn who counts their age in dog years. CNN is basically a chicken with its head cut off. Fox is malicious because they still think I'm a stupid liberal white dude. Get your shit straight bro.

[Zambroski]

Just now, Wildboer said:

MSNBC is benificent because they support my right to identify as a transgender black unicorn who counts their age in dog years. CNN is basically a chicken with its head cut off. Fox is malicious because they still think I'm a stupid liberal white dude. Get your shit straight bro.

You know what?  I'll accept all of this.

 

[Rod]

The gif wasn't even that bad, or funny. If CNN didn't have a panic attack over it, it would have just disappeared into nothing by the next day, when CNN freaks about his next tweet 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

38 minutes ago, Wildboer said:

Nah, I still think they're just stupid and inept rather than intentionally malicious like Fox.

Because doing the socially called for thing is a step in the right direction for them, if we encourage that maybe they'll do it again. Like it's not much, but it's a step in the right direction for them lol

I disagree. It is actually the step in the wrong direction. How many times before did they extort someone into apologizing from the internet? Now the left is celebrating them or saying "good restraint". Lol come on... The message this sends for free speech (which is all the funnier, in a sad way, coming from a MEDIA OUTLET) is horrendous. I hope someone sues the fuck out of them over this. Just as I would for any other media outlet who pulled this authoritarian bullshit. 

35 minutes ago, Snake said:

You sound like Snot now, with all the mind reading and fortune telling.

That cuts deep. Take it back. 

[Zambroski]

2 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

I disagree. It is actually the step in the wrong direction. How many times before did they extort someone into apologizing from the internet? Now the left is celebrating them or saying "good restraint". Lol come on... The message this sends for free speech (which is all the funnier, in a sad way, coming from a MEDIA OUTLET) is horrendous. I hope someone sues the fuck out of them over this. Just as I would for any other media outlet who pulled this authoritarian bullshit. 

That cuts deep. Take it back. 

I agree with your disagreement.  This was petty bullshit.  It's still hard to believe.  But not that hard I guess.  It does prove one thing, Trump really is getting to them.

And damn @Snake, that was pretty cold man!

[Wildboer]

35 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

You know what?  I'll accept all of this.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

The gif wasn't even that bad, or funny. If CNN didn't have a panic attack over it, it would have just disappeared into nothing by the next day, when CNN freaks about his next tweet 

I gotta agree with you on this one man, the whole uproar was pretty stupid.

8 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

I disagree. It is actually the step in the wrong direction. How many times before did they extort someone into apologizing from the internet? Now the left is celebrating them or saying "good restraint". Lol come on... The message this sends for free speech (which is all the funnier, in a sad way, coming from a MEDIA OUTLET) is horrendous. I hope someone sues the fuck out of them over this. Just as I would for any other media outlet who pulled this authoritarian bullshit. 

That cuts deep. Take it back. 

Free speech and guaranteed anonymity are very different though. If you want to say something you can, if you want to do it anonymously I say it's on you to cover your tracks.

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

Just now, Wildboer said:

 

Free speech and guaranteed anonymity are very different though. If you want to say something you can, if you want to do it anonymously I say it's on you to cover your tracks.

That is not the case here. It is power over the powerless. What agency does this kid have against CNN? He exercises his right to free speech and CNN with their infinite power over him can coerce him out of that right. Sure we can say he has no right to anonymity, but what does that do to freedom of expression when a company has the ability to strip you of everything of worth through that power of exposure. Who dares speak out when a company is willing to destroy that person over it?

[Zambroski]

1 minute ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

That is not the case here. It is power over the powerless. What agency does this kid have against CNN? He exercises his right to free speech and CNN with their infinite power over him can coerce him out of that right. Sure we can say he has no right to anonymity, but what does that do to freedom of expression when a company has the ability to strip you of everything of worth through that power of exposure. Who dares speak out when a company is willing to destroy that person over it?

This.  Can I say that again?  Cuz...THIS!

[Wildboer]

14 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

That is not the case here. It is power over the powerless. What agency does this kid have against CNN? He exercises his right to free speech and CNN with their infinite power over him can coerce him out of that right. Sure we can say he has no right to anonymity, but what does that do to freedom of expression when a company has the ability to strip you of everything of worth through that power of exposure. Who dares speak out when a company is willing to destroy that person over it?

Ok, first, the idea that this is a kid is definitely fake news unless someone else actually doxxed them and I haven't heard about it.

 

And aren't corporations the same as people? Won't the market correct the company's behavior? Sarcasm aside I grew up on the internet and I simply don't understand this expectation of privacy when it comes to public speech. The kkk wore hoods, would it have been unethical for a powerful news corporation to have infiltrated their meetings and pulled off their heads? You have the right to say whatever you want, you don't have the right to say it without anyone know you said it. Free speech doesn't imply freedom from taking responsibility for said speech.

11 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

This.  Can I say that again?  Cuz...THIS!

It sounds like a pretty good argument for regulating the media to me...

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

8 minutes ago, Wildboer said:

Ok, first, the idea that this is a kid is definitely fake news unless someone else actually doxxed them and I haven't heard about it.

 

And aren't corporations the same as people? Won't the market correct the company's behavior? Sarcasm aside I grew up on the internet and I simply don't understand this expectation of privacy when it comes to public speech. The kkk wore hoods, would it have been unethical for a powerful news corporation to have infiltrated their meetings and pulled off their heads? You have the right to say whatever you want, you don't have the right to say it without anyone know you said it. Free speech doesn't imply freedom from taking responsibility for said speech.

It sounds like a pretty good argument for regulating the media to me...

Corporations are not and will not ever be people in my book. I don't care what the law says. 

And that is some seriously flawed thinking equating the KKK and some kid (or adult as it does not matter). One is hate speech. One is freedom of expression. Again, you do not have a right for anonymity. That is not the arguement here. It is the precedent of a NEWS organization attempting to coerce a citizen of this country via force. It goes against all things they should stand for. EVERY ONE OF THEM. Think about their desire to keep their own sources anonymous. You are a liberal minded guy. I cannot believe you cannot see the ethical peril here? 

And this has nothing to do with regulating the media. It has everything to do with expecting more from them. If they fail to do so, it is apologists for those media orgs that are propagating this unethical behavior. People should boycott them. That is your regulation. But apologists who look at this through party lenses will prevent good order and decorum from ruling our media. It is disgusting. 

Edited July 6, 2017 by xtralettucetomatoe580

[Zambroski]

3 minutes ago, Wildboer said:

Ok, first, the idea that this is a kid is definitely fake news unless someone else actually doxxed them and I haven't heard about it.

 

And aren't corporations the same as people? Won't the market correct the company's behavior? Sarcasm aside I grew up on the internet and I simply don't understand this expectation of privacy when it comes to public speech. The kkk wore hoods, would it have been unethical for a powerful news corporation to have infiltrated their meetings and pulled off their heads? You have the right to say whatever you want, you don't have the right to say it without anyone know you said it. Free speech doesn't imply freedom from taking responsibility for said speech.

It sounds like a pretty good argument for regulating the media to me...

I think it's time for some accountability.  This saying whatever they want about whoever or whatever they want with no proof and questionable "sources" while standing behind the first amendment has been overplayed.  Most Americans not only no longer trust the MSM, the despise them.

In fact doing anything that offends or puts out anybody else while standing on some basic idea turned fringe idea of a "Constitutional right" has been overplayed.  

 

[Snake]

It is the threat of future disclosure that is so concerning and dangerous. News is not supposed to be a weapon to be brandished to induce good conduct by organizations like CNN. Free speech and free press go hand in hand. Indeed, many reporters are protected more under the former right than the latter in legal controversies. Once a news organization becomes the manager of free speech, it becomes a menace to the free press.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.