Friday, September 25, 2009

CNN discovers what an unruly protest looks like

With all of the media handwringing about the potential for violence at Congressional town-hall meetings in August — potential only realized when unions and counterprotesters began attacking ObamaCare opponents — one has to marvel at the lack of any such speculation at the G-20 protests in Pittsburgh. Of course, the media didn’t bat an eye at the larger implications of the real violence from the same leftist crowd in Saint Paul, Minnesota, during the Republican convention, either. It seems that conservatives exercising free speech in a passionate but responsible manner freaks out the national media far more than leftists engaged in actual political violence.

Case in point — this report from CNN’s Brian Todd to Wolf Blitzer yesterday:




Compare this to Susan Roesgen’s reporting from the Chicago Tea Party in April, when CNN warned that the report was not “family viewing”:




CNN eventually dumped Roesgen for this, but they aired her report at the time. Notice that Todd doesn’t challenge any of the protesters around him (which is the professional way to report on the event, of course). However, CNN and Todd also didn’t go around looking for the nuttiest signs they could highlight, and no one in this clip ever starts speculating as to whether this violent protest means that the Left is inherently violent or could start attacking politicians at the drop of a hat — unlike how the media has treated the Tea Party movement.


And here's the reason for the protests from two imbeciles interviewed by Sean Hannity. You just wish you could reach out and smack them upside the head.


3 Opinion(s):

FishEagle said...

Shame, give these two girls each a Noddy badge. They tried so hard.

Anonymous said...

PhD student - jees! Why is it that its the academics who are so full of bull. Have they been so brainwashed that they cant see the truth?

Anonymous said...

They do raise one good point:
every person in the US could've ecieved $44000- rather than bailing out the banks. With the recent house price explosion (more than doubled in last ten years), this would've had a far more immediate and positive effect on the economy, with more poeple being able to buy property and more disposable income to keep people buying - you know, the thing that keeps the economy ticking over!
HOWEVER, just like here in the UK, tose who own the banks (and control government) have succeeded in ensalving everyone for a much greater part of their lives (indeed with the new "two-generation mortgages" for the first tme in history you can sell your kids into slavery too)!
So, obviously the banks were bailed out to centralise the wealth... now the "govenment" in the US and UK own all the property mortgages and the banks have all our tax money, while we don't get to see the natural fall out of a crash which should be the halving of house prices and negative equity for those who bought beyond their means, while the responsible among us were saving!

We've changed the natural economic course for the firs time in the history of the banking world...
and we must now reap what we sowed, a lifetime (or two) of the enslavement of the white man (coz those who get free shit se don't have our problem of paying mortgages)!

If you think about it, it makes sense... these girls can see the problem but it's just that they have the wrong solution (their solution is the one offered by the same people who designed this centralisation of wealth - either way, the white man becomes enslaved)!

Common Sense