7 ms·
Decades ago, the news networks used to beam AV via satellite directly from the remote station in the field back to headquarters to be broadcast. They didn’t enc
by PIKAL 6y ago
Decades ago, the news networks used to beam AV via satellite directly from the remote station in the field back to headquarters to be broadcast. They didn’t encrypt those signals, so anyone could pick them up if they knew how. This was raw footage, so there would often be candid segments showing people setting stuff up or getting ready for an interview.
Someone recorded a lot of these and later published a multi-hour compilation of them on YouTube. I forget the name of that compilation, but I can tell you that the following is by far the most interesting segment from it.
https://youtu.be/VCUIlV-AKY4 https://youtu.be/VCUIlV-AKY4
When I try to tell people about this segment, they don’t believe me. They write me off as being insane. Decide for yourself. Don’t believe what the news media tells you.
Edit: DanG, why is my comment being collapsed when it has ~20 upvotes?
- tanotcare 6y ago"serve" him in a cabinet position. Hope that clears things up!
- PIKAL 6y agoAnd you would say the same thing if the same footage came out but it was Bill O Reilly, Rupert Murdoch and George Bush instead of Clinton, King and Turner?
- ChrisClark 6y agoUm, yes, of course. Isn't it obvious what the context is?
- PIKAL 6y agoIn what context should billionaire media moguls be serving, colluding or collaborating with politicians of any kind, let alone a presidential candidate?
- CptFribble 6y agoThere is a long history of presidentially-appointed people saying they "serve at the pleasure of the President." It simply means that they hold the job only so long as the president wants them there. This has extended "serving" to broader, more casual usage when speaking about people who work for the president as you can see here. It's not "serving" like working as a servant/a billionaire doing whatever the president says in a controlling/exploitative way, it just means that Larry King thinks that Ted Turner wouldn't turn down a cabinet appointment. You can also infer from the way King says that "what's he got left in life to gain," and Clinton's surprised "you're kidding," that they both consider this kind of service to be a major downgrade from the billionaire life - King saying here that Ted Turner has nothing left to gain indicates a separation in his mind between personal gain and working for the Clinton administration. Clinton's surprised response tells us he feels the same way, surprise that a billionaire would want to work for the president.
- qqj 6y agoyikes, what a sleazebag. Larry hit the anti-Semitic trifecta (Jews, Israel and media moguls in bed with politicians) in under a minute of just random chit chat. The mind reels at the shady backroom deals this man was responsible for.
- xeromal 6y agoI'm being 100% honest here. I'm having a hard time following what he said or the meaning behind it at least. Care to elaborate?
- nickdonnelly 6y agoLong and short of it: Ted Turner is the guy who created CNN, a very influential news source in the US. Many people consider CNN to be a "left-wing" news source, and in the clip King talks to Bill Clinton, a democratic politician, about Ted Turner "serving" Clinton after he was elected president. The use of the word "serving" is the issue, as it sounds like a quid pro quo.
- syshum 6y ago>> Many people consider CNN to be a "left-wing" news source Are their people that do see the clear bias of the network? This is like saying "Many people consider Fox news to be a "right wing" network" There is no doubt of the political leanings of either network. CNN is/was not called Clinton News Network for nothing.....
- umanwizard 6y agoCNN is not really “left-wing” in a broad ideological sense. It’s the unofficial mouthpiece of the Democratic Party and the “liberal” side of the US culture war. Note for example how poorly they treated Sanders who was further left than any of the other mainstream candidates.
- syshum 6y ago
- toddey65 6y agoI don't see anything wrong with this. I mean it's like I'm talking to Elon Musk. And I have a friend who really wants to work at Tesla. Yeah I'd be a good friend and mention him to Elon Musk.
- bane 6y agoYou can see a number of these here https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Brian+Springer%22 https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Brian+Spri...
- bikitan 6y ago"Deciding for yourself" doesn't mean jumping to conspiratorial conclusions based on an ambiguous, off-the-cuff remark from 1992, though. And just looking at the comments on that video you can see what sort of agenda these people are bringing to their judgments.
- PIKAL 6y agoRaw video footage doesn’t have an agenda. You have clearly decided for yourself what the footage means to you. Good for you.
- colordrops 6y agoNo leaked videos are even necessary. It should be obvious to any critical thinker that CNN is the Democrat version of FOX news with a small amount of viewing.
- 29athrowaway 6y agoMost journalism has an editorial line, which is usually aligned with the people that pay the bills. It is the case for newspapers, radio, TV... even websites. Very rarely you have journalism with neutral editorial lines.
- xxpor 6y agoThere's no such thing as neutrality. Usually when people talk about neutrality, they really mean status quo, or worse giving equal weight to "both sides" (implying the major US political parties are the only possible views on a subject), without even trying to assertain the truth of the matter. Journalism isn't simply putting facts down on paper, but it's also interpreting how it affects the reader. Even if you pretend to simply write the who what when and where of a story, you still have to choose what to cover. That in and of itself has no right answer, you inevitably make an idological choice.
- 29athrowaway 6y agoYou can argue "there's no such thing as neutrality"... but consider the following: News Station A: 1. Heavily edited clip of political candidate saying something. 2. News anchor provides a 10 min opinion of what happened. 3. An analyst is invited to give their opinion about what happened for 30 min.. News Station B: 1. Video of what happened. 2. News anchor describes when it happened and where. No accompanying opinion is provided. What is more neutral? News Station B, for sure. The first format is the only one available in the US, in my country that format is considered yellow journalism and is unacceptable.
- na85 6y agoIt seems quite obvious to me that Larry is trying to get Ted Turner a job in the Clinton Administration. What are you seeing there that's so shocking?