D
Deleted member 1
Guest
They had none to ever consider publishing it. Or state that they might publish it.
They had none to ever consider publishing it. Or state that they might publish it.
I think we need to understand the timeline of the posted apology. From what I understand it goes:
CNN contacts about article they are going to run ----> Guy posts apology online, and sends personal apology to CNN(contents of which are unknown) ---> CNN post article which threatens to reveal man's identity if he continues posting racist shit about CNN employees online
of course they did, if he had gone another way and continued to post the way he had been then he would still be making himself knowingly a part of the story, if the president then retweeted or posted more of his shit CNN would be absolutely right to name him.
technically they had every right to publish his name in the first place but it would have been shitty and they clearly saw that and chose not to. what a bunch of assholes eh?
I disagree. Once the President of the United States tweeted it out, and this guy claimed responsibility for the tweet, he became part of the story. The story became larger when it became clear that this man doesn't just create funny CNN wrestling memes, but also creates incredibly racists memes about CNN and others too.
Compared to the Daily Mail which put some people in our national newspaper for calling some politicians a bellend on twitter. Yet, there seems no outrage there.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
What journalistic reason is there to publish, "WHO IS REALLY BEHIND ONE OF THESE DANKEST MEMES??!!"
The president tweeting.
The president getting it from an internet user.
That internet user makes lots of dank memes.
That internet user is a guy with a kid and sometimes he drinks coffee and works in an office and doesn't vote Democrat...and that adds to the dank meme president story!
I lied. One more post and I'm done.
It was blackmail which includes a threat.
Blackmail
Blackmailing is a crime, which involves threat to reveal true or false information about an individual unless a demand is met. If demands are not fulfilled than a person has to face physical harm or damage to his property or person.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
We don't read the daily mail here.
I posted the example in this thread, and explained it. Only you replied, and, in fairness, had a reasonable response. Many others are jumping over their dicks to denounce CNN for threatening to do a lessor crime than the Daily Mail.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Thread has mostly run it's course and then restarted in a kind of combative manner. Im sure most aren't clicking or are just moving on.
There have been multiple people that have weighed in outraged about CNN that overlooked the Daily Mail.
for the last time i will state my opinion, and then you are welcome to repeat yours and stick to it;
no reasonable person well informed of the facts of this situation should consider what CNN wrote to be a threat. i have stated all the reasons multiple times, apparently you disagree. ok, great. i get it.
Isn't that British? Maybe ask the British then. And maybe they're ok with that over there. It explains your sentiment perfectly.
My opinion is that CNN's statement was a threat. They said that they didn't release his information BECAUSE he apologized and agreed to stop the undesired behavior. Then stated that they reserved the right to release it if his behavior changed.
I think the debatable part is in whether or not the threat was justifiable. That is why I used an example of a threat to my child. It was a justifiable threat, but a threat none the less.
And IMO, whether or not they carry out the threat doesn't negate the fact that their statement read as a threat.
If CNN's job is to virtue signal, and to repair their heavily tainted public image, then yes. Everything to distract from the fact they've been on a wild goose chase about Russians and missing air planes. Then yes, it is totally justified.
If not, the best course of action is to notify authorities, if they've found illegal activity to take place against CNN. But being an asshole is not illegal, so they (CNN) want to play the asshole game, which is of course ridiculous for a media outlet to engage in, very unprofessional and damaging to the already tattered credibilty of this "News" outlet.
CNN fan boys try to deny what was out in the open for everybody to see, no amount of discussion is going change that. It's revisionist history in its most pure and delusional form. But I am the one with the lack of information
At least I have common sense.
So it's not about principle but about CNN specifically, for you?
that's all it is about for most of the people upset about it, it is unmistakable in the things they say.
you present a logic based argument and they go "duhhh you CNN fanboy snowflake hillary lover!"
or spam memes...
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
I hardly think it's that simple and framing everybody else as unreasonable doesn't make a strong case for a logic-based argument
Comically, and sort of in a beautiful commentary on this entire subject, memes have become a modern political commentary/cartoon that is sometimes more powerful than any amount of texts you might feel like writing.
Anybody discounting memes is discounting this serious effect they are and will be having in the future.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Also, the left sucks at memes and is why they will keep losing national elections until they rectify this.
The issue is that they target things that don't cause butthurt and tears.
Look at this:
That isn't a good meme. I'd be proud to post that lol. The intended impact is lost if I have neutral/pseudo pro Russia position.
Up your game!
You can be arrested for hateful tweets in Britain
