Is CNN trying to resuscitate itself as a real political network rather than establishment clones?
Times are changing. Sometimes for the better. Hillary Goddam Clinton is being offered a plea deal by Sessions' DOJ to plead guilty to "prosecutable crimes" in return for no further legal actions against her for CGI, uranium one, pay-to-play, and her email scandal which is still producing more poisonous (for her) fruit. My take is that she can NEVER admit that she has done anything wrong and will go down with her Titanic-sized load of garbage rather than admit she was a felon. Think about November 7, 2017 before HRC was expected to ascend her throne, would anybody then have expected this turn of events? Even Chuckie Schumer has now told HRC to back off and essentially go away.
The haughty NYT, the so-called "Paper of Record", still tows the line of the corporate masters. Carlos Slim probably has enough spare change to keep the NYT solvent but the NYT is irreparably damaged in its present form. Changing their tune? Not likely.
AmazonWashington Compost, the CIA's direct print organ, will not change its government or deep state agenda, even in light of the changing views of Americans--even those on the conservative side. No weathervane there--ever.
CNN, which ranks below the Cartoon Network in total viewership, possibly could be beginning to realize that they are going to follow the Democratic party in their quest for self-annihilation, unless they change. Hence, they have allowed two true progressives some airtime: Nina Turner and Ro Khanna. I don't know if I trust Ro Khanna completely due to his extensive tech ties. But Nina is the real deal.
So here's the interview which leads to the present essay:
Here is a valuable point, other than the content of the interview (15:53 long), which is important on its own merits. Namely that the Alternate Media (AM) has been steadily growing in authorship and readership. The internet is truly the voice of the people, even though quite a few sites are subsidized by donors expecting a return on investment. And of course, outright censorship, now euphemistically called "algorithms", decide what is appropriate speech. The appropriateness of course depends upon the economic and political of the internet hosts.
I surf the intertubez frequently (which is quite difficult for an alligator to do). In my travels, I am coming across more and more channels--the number of YouTube channels devoted to politics is growing steadily. Distrust of the MSM And the Government (aka Powers That Be) has become steadily more prevalent in the general population of the US. This is not to say that new channels are primarily progressive; they aren't. There are Conservative, Socialist, Nihilist, Pirate, Oligarchic, etc. channels popping up every where.
But I have noticed a phenomenon about which I may speculate, that many conservative channels have larger subscribers than many progressive channels. I am not talking Alex Jones scale nor Cenk Uyghur scale. I am talking about people like David Seaman, a generally conservative but definitely not establishmentarian, who has about twice as many viewers as Tim Black. Their subscribers numbers (both channels are growing). Two channels which hold great promise, though most of you may not be familiar with are the Rational National and Tracy Beanz. Both are progressive. Both have noticeable increases in subscription rates, even though still small.
I am not here to plug any particular channels, but to illustrate the growing number of independent channels, whether right, left, or extraterrestrial, bearing no allegiance to corporate donors. But can anyone on the internet with even the vaguest interest in politics fail to realize the growing AM power? Most certainly the MSM takes notice. Even the flailing NYT had to counter the accurate perception of their failing circulation by ridiculously proclaiming that they sushi in their cafeteria! Who the Hell cares what those suckers eat? It's what they try to feed us that matters to us.
CNN's recent posting of views opposing their corporate masters should not be mistaken for support of those views. It doesn't. But one doesn't have to think back very far when CNN never mentioned Bernie Sanders until Bernie's support became so overwhelming, they would look like the fools they are for failing to at least mention him--even though they have never supported him.
Other little items of an anti-establishment nature are beginning to creep into the MSM because they can no longer keep the lid on their reporting as tightly as it was even a year ago. For instance, even though the DNC fraud suit is rarely mentioned, if ever, in the MSM, the perpetrator Debbie W. Schultz has been coming in for a crescendo of deprecatory material; well overdue in my opinion.
So the times are changing. But are the levels of awareness that "we've been had" increasing rapidly enough to effect a substantive change is politics? By this I mean not "incrementalism" as personified by HRC and DNC, but real no-holds-barred progressive change. The first test of this will not be in Trump's presidency but in the 2018 elections. Will more progressives be elected on the blue ticket? Will more incumbent establishmentarians be primaried out or defeated in general elections, that will tell us.
The MSM can no longer avoid the earthquake which is growing in magnitude with every day. CNN, the weakest of the MSM outlets is more aware of this or at least ready to grudgingly acknowledge this tectonic shift in our politics, than the other outlets.
Once again, this essay should be viewed as presenting principles rather than strict factual analysis of the post herein cited. Those of you who follow any of my posts, know how desperately in love I am with the Camel s/.
Here are examples of my love for Willie Brown's fling thing:
One last comment about the video above: