BUSTED: CNN's Republican Women For Kavanaugh Are Actually GOP Operatives

[KelleyKramer]

BUSTED: CNN's Republican Women For Kavanaugh Are Actually GOP Operatives


CNN recently held a 'focus' group of Republican women that believe Brett Kavanaugh is a great guy. It turns out, these women kind of work for the party. Sam Seder and the Majority Report crew discuss this.

.

[NanceGreggs]

1. Some people seem determined ...

... to push this meme.

CNN presented them as "Republican women". They are indeed Republicans, and they are women.

At no time did CNN say that this was a randomly selected group, nor did they even imply that these women were not active participants in their party's political doings.

I have to wonder why some people are so determined to cite this as some kind of glaring example of - what's the phrase? - oh, yeah, "fake news"

[OnDoutside]

2. Because if you didn't know, you might think they were random Republican voting women, NOT

footsoldier operatives of the GOP, with talking points. That's pretty fake.

[NanceGreggs]

3. So what?

Lots of Republican women think exactly as these women think, and say exactly the things these women said.

Whether they're "footsoldier operatives" of the GOP or not is irrelevant. And CNN never profferred them as anything other than "Republican women", and never even inferred that they were "random Republican voters".

How is it fake to say "these are Republican women" when that's exactly what they were? If you somehow inferred that meant "random GOP voters", that's your problem.

[OnDoutside]

4. Because it's deceitful, and no, it's not "my" problem. MSM have a hard enough time without sham

focus groups like this. If CNN were on the level, they could briefly have mentioned that they were operatives, but they didn't. Great for you that you can see beyond this but most people don't have your discerning eye, and would take it that because what these highly partisan women said, it represents what all Rep women think.

[NanceGreggs]

5. CNN described five people ...

... as "Republican women". Which they are.

Whatever you read into it beyond that is on you - so go ahead and claim you were "deceived" by your own assumptions.

[OnDoutside]

6. I was deceived. There, I said it. Shame on CNN.

[NanceGreggs]

8. You were decieved ...

... and it's CNN's fault?

Why? What did CNN tell you that was deceptive?

Maybe you're just a victim of your own self-deception.

[OnDoutside]

9. You invited me to

"Whatever you read into it beyond that is on you - so go ahead and claim you were "deceived" by your own assumptions."

And THEN you criticize me for doing so ????

What CNN didn't tell me, was deceptive, giving the impression that these were just ordinary Republican women, not highly partisan Republican women. There's no getting away from that, and while you are no doubt able to decipher their bona fides, most of the general public would have been taken in by CNN's deception. And I would say the same if CNN had portrayed Democratic operatives as Democratic women.

[ProfessorPlum]

13. You are WAY off base on this one Nance

It's called lying by omission

[KelleyKramer]

7. There is actually a term for it in journalism, it's called 'full disclosure'

It is standard procedure in both print and broadcast journalism to give full disclosure for any connections to a story you are reporting or commenting on.

If someone is commenting on a controversial military program, and that person works for or is a lobbyist for the company selling the weapon, then they should reveal that up front, before making any comments.


And I'll give another example that is more relevant here...

"We asked a Republican woman what she thought of the Anita Hill hearings, here is what she said..."

And that woman is Clarence Thomas wife...

Yes, she is a woman. And yes, she is a Republican

But without full disclosure it is dishonest to present her as some random Republican woman

[OnDoutside]

10. Exactly, thank you.

[ProfessorPlum]

12. thank you

[duforsure]

11. More liars and criminals

That's what you can expect from trump and his kgop as they start their reign of terror onto this country and its people now. These people will lie as much as the breath without any problem , and the American people are waking up to this and rejecting them soundly at the voting booths .

[cstanleytech]

14. I could see a problem if they had claimed the women were

a random mix of women with varies political opinions that supported various parties but they were interviewing Repugnants and they did not attempt to hide that.
Besides if no Repugnant left their party when Bush started his shit the odds are they are not going to honestly do it under Trump as a leopard does not change its spots just like a Repugnant does not change what little mind it has.

[ProfessorPlum]

15. they could have just said they were "American women" and they would have been

just as accurate as calling them Republican women. Both statements are 100% true. Calling them American women is even _more_ misleading than calling them republican women, but neither phrase describes them in enough detail to really convey who is being surveyed, and whose opinions should be taken with a grain (or a block) of salt.

[cstanleytech]

16. Any Repugnants opinion needs to be taken with an oceans load of salt.

[ProfessorPlum]

17. Republican operatives even more so