I used to feel fortunate that CNN is accessible to me for free. Not anymore. I’m talking of CNN International – Europe. I had learned to enjoy the segments, all of them, and have become familiar with the anchor persons and field reporters. All of them.
Until Bernie Sanders happened. ❤
My first disappointment was when Fareed Zakariah discussed the claim of Sen. Sanders that had “no credible economic research”, so four economists said, about some economic dynamics (it’s also found here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sanderss-plans-make-republicans-look-serious/2016/02/18/4dbddb40-d684-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html ). I was disappointed that the program and the post sounded like it was pounding Sen. Sanders’ opinions to the ground and so I had to search for information on names involved in the narrative. I counted the four economists out, as it’s obvious that they’re not supporting Sen. Sanders’ ideas on this. What I found out about the other name mentioned, an economics professor, (I read it here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/18/the-economist-who-validated-bernie-sanders-big-liberal-plans-is-voting-for-hillary-clinton/ ) is that aside that he is voting for Sec. Clinton, his calculations involve variables that can be “adjusted” to a point where the four economists involved would not have been able to criticize his results the way they did. I wish that Fareed Zakariah would have done a narrative in such a way that Sen. Sanders did not come out like an ignorant babbler. On the other hand, that he’s voting for one or another doesn’t say anything about his calculations. If indeed he is voting for Sec. Clinton and still talks positively about Sen. Sanders’ ideas, then it shows his innocent intention about the whole thing. (He speaks in an interview, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G-oHzb6DX8 .)
Moreover, another economics professor (in agreement with 169 economists) clarifies the correctness of the senator’s plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqIr45gRr-k .
My next disappointment was when Jonathan Mann made it sound in one of his Political Mann segments that Sen. Sanders was not saying the truth when he claimed that he had been invited to the Vatican. The narrative ended by putting across to the viewers that it appears that Sen. Sanders had invited himself to the Vatican. Of course the senator was invited, by the Academy of Social Sciences that was started by Pope John Paul II in 1994 ( http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-08/so-who-exactly-invited-bernie-sanders-to-the-vatican ).
Today at this writing CNN International – Europe makes it sound that Sen. Sanders’ stay in the campaign is “hurting” the campaign of Sec. Clinton. It is an idiotic notion as seen from a few basic assumptions. (1.) If the election is democratic, and Sen. Sanders is winning a tremendous amount of votes, then staying in the campaign if fair both to Sen. Sanders’ aim and to the citizens who are yet to vote for him. These are both Democrats and Independents. (2.) Saying that Sen. Sanders should drop out implies that his right to try for the office of the president is not acknowledged and the right of those who are yet to vote for him is denied. (3.) Instead of being positive about the fact that Sen. Sanders is injecting vitality into the whole voting process, making a myriad of formerly apathetic voters to come out and participate, Sen. Sanders is constantly and subtly being elbowed out of the process.
Just now CNN is discussing, with Wolf Blitzer, how the senator should own up to the Nevada chaos. It’s not as if he is altogether outrightly absolutely denying responsibility for the event. He has in fact said that he will investigate. He has in fact spoken that he does not condone any form of campaign violence (here’s a news segment on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVPHNbTszUI&spfreload=10
and an analysis of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEY_KYD3sCY
and here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0YT03p6qqQ ). The issue is not with the senator but with the people who were directly responsible for the chaos. They are independent-thinking individuals who were witnessing a process that they perceived to be unfair. Why they were angry, why they were protesting, and why they became that passionately expressive cannot be assumed to have resulted from irrational idiotic views. It does not imply that the senator wanted the chaos to take place or that he had instigated or encouraged the reaction. It implies that there were real stimuli happening at real time that caused a corresponding reaction from those who felt disadvantaged by the process. What was the stimulus that produced this reaction? Were those people involved totally unreasonable? The other side dancing the tango has to be investigated, too. Here’s another analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTuH3jeIS-I
If Sen. Sanders’ voice had been largely ignored by the big media, his gargantuan campaign events not shown on air, his views sold as plain “socialism” with a poisonous tinge attached to it, and the phenomenon that millions have now become convinced of his vision in so short a time is not even a topic for mainstream-media discussion are just a few reasons why any sane supporter of his would now be calling the entire so-called democratic process nothing but foul. There are other issues that they also have the right to be angry about like the voting irregularities that are not discussed, the incidences of voting suppression, and the alleged disregard for votation laws by the former president Clinton; here: https://www.change.org/p/massachusetts-attorney-general-maura-healey-arrest-prosecute-bill-clinton-john-f-mitchell-violation-of-ma-election-laws
I have no choice now but to surf the internet for news with regards to the US elections. CNN had just made my life less easier, so to speak! 😀 The downside is that I have come to slowly un-like their entire station! After all, a human being is entitled to her feelings. 🙂
Have a great day, everyone. Thanks for dropping by. Stay healthy!
❤
🙂
❤
❤
sacada lang 