The pro-Clinton mainstream media, challenged by one guy with a camera

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The video I have posted below the fold, posted at this link, was taken outside the convention after Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton.

[O]nce Bernie Sanders endorsed Secretary Clinton via a rules change request throwing all delegate votes to Hillary, the vast majority of movement democrats left the arena. Immediately following the roll call vote, the DNC quickly moved to bar any pro-Sanders signage from the venue. Anyone holding Sanders signs was warned they were subject to forced removal and loss of convention credentials. Outside the arena the Bernie Sanders supporters gathered to voice their protest to the strong arm tactics. [emphasis in original]

The video shows a pro-Clinton (and former Sanders) delegate talking to the press about how wrong the Sanders protesters are. As he talks he is challenged by one of those protesters, who loudly disagrees with him.

What the video shows clearly is that the mainstream press is only interested in recording and interviewing the pro-Clinton guy. In fact, when the guy taking this video begins to note loudly this obvious bias to everyone (beginning at around 1:50), the press suddenly realizes how biased they look and some make a half-hearted effort to make believe they are interested in talking to the Sanders protester.

What I find most significant about this video, and quite entertaining, is how it demonstrates how completely useless today’s mainstream press is, and how that press is increasingly losing all influence because the general public has access to many other lone guys with a camera, videotaping events and showing us what is really happening.

In other words, don’t depend on just television news for your information. You will not only be uninformed, you will be misinformed.


  • Wayne

    Personally, I have watched some of the DNC Convention via C-span, but the interior camera-feeds are all controlled by the DNC. (but, no talking heads explaining their spin. and telling you what you just heard.)

    I did check MSLSD, FOX, and CNN yesterday afternoon– FOX was focused on the Bernie supporters outside (and praying for a riot), the other 2 pretended they didn’t exist.

  • Cotour

    All of these media manipulations are attempts to control the melt down. Not even the melt down, the revealing to the public the truth about Hillary’s overwhelming amount of lies in regards to her multi level un American activities. And there IMO is a significant 1/3rd of the electorate that are listening closely and will be outraged and will not be able to stomach voting for her. There is probably another 1/3rd of the public that can not process the truth about her and over power the imagery that has been crafted in their minds about her in the past 30 years. And combined with their inability to get comfortable with Trump will obediently vote for her, and the other third are just so confused by the immensity of the amount of political information they will not be able to understand much because they are only immersed in their lives and unable to think in any other capacity.

    What looks like will be happening in the coming weeks is Wikileaks will be releasing further communications, possibly between D.W. Shultz and Hillary directly? Possibly about Hillary’s illegal server and the missing emails from her Secretary of State “service” ? And possibly more evidence that this deal below regarding Uranium and the Russians and the Clinton Foundation and funds deposited in it at convenient times. The potential here is very much open ended on many fronts. Obviously technology and the people who manipulate it do not seem to favor Mrs. Clinton.

    On Trump, the totally asymmetrical candidate: His opponents have no idea what to do.

    If Trump does not win the 2016 election it will only be because Hillary interested forces were able to pervert the vote at the ballot box or in cyberspace. And the general feeling I get is that the winds of change are favoring Trump and not Hillary.

  • Cotour

    Clarification: Those 1/3rds represent the break down of Democrats and not the general public, and reflect my experience in talking to Democrats and what they appear to be thinking.

  • Jim Jakoubek

    I seem to remember a story from long ago where Walter Cronkite, after he had retired, was asked in an interview what he missed about not being in the news game anymore. He responded that he missed not being able to set the agenda or something to that effect.

    Here we see echos of that comment. It is really not a surprise that the media behaves the way it does. The majority of them are liberals and leftists and they advance that point of view with their biased reporting all the while calling themselves journalists.

    The Wiki leaks of the DNC emails showed this quite clearly. Here we see it in action in all its glory.

    I for one will be very interested if indeed Wiki Leaks has the 30,000 Hillary emails that were deleted from her home brewed server that contained nothing more than wedding plans and such how they will spin that one. Now THAT will be entertaining.

  • Cotour


    Trump today encouraged the Russians to release any emails that were hacked looking for the 30 thousand plus emails that Hillary had deleted. This general request which is more theater than anything else is preceded in time and in treasonous conspiring. Does anyone remember when Teddy Kennedy as a sitting senator actually attempted to conspire with Uri Andropov to take Reagan out of the presidential race.

    Actual fact that you may not be aware of and that you may not be hearing about still. Truth is more shocking than fiction.

  • wayne

    Jim Jakoubek– Good stuff.
    (Even Nixon is alleged to have said, “if we lose Cronkite, we lose the War.” And of course, Cronkite did his best to ensure we did lose.) ((I classify him as an America-Hater.))
    I would add:
    -It’s telling that the spin is concentrating on WHO did it, rather than the CONTENT.
    -What would also be highly interesting– emails from the RNC, back-n-forth to whomever.
    -Personally, I’m a slight bit more interested/concerned with how much Alphabet (google) knows about everyone in the Executive Branch, who ALL use gmail for their internal “good stuff,”, instead of the Government system.

    Cotour– I’m not all that convinced there’s an actual “meltdown” with the democrat party. Its more akin, possibly, to the Trotskyite’s arguing with the Bolshevik’s. (or simply manufactured-conflict… it makes for exciting reality-TV.)
    They both already decided they want to smash Capitalism, they are simply arguing over how-fast it should be done & who gets sent to the re-education Camps, first…
    At the risk of bringing up Star Trek— (but I know we DO agree on this)–
    -The Left, is the Borg.

    That Periscope website, had a number of live-feeds outside the Convention hall on Monday & Tuesday.

    Total tangent & I can not vouch for this– I read some piece of blog-speak somewhere on the weekend, that local Pharmacies were (allegedly) “internally advised to keep the bare minimum of Controlled Substances on hand this week, in case of looting.”

    –In Ferguson, and this is a factoid,– 100,000+ doses of opiates & 25,000+ doses of amphetamine’s were looted from CVS & Walgreen’s Pharmacies during the rioting there.

  • wayne

    Good deal reminding everyone of Teddy’s complicity against Reagan!

  • Garry

    My wife recently commented that there are no newscasts in the US; it’s all opinion. I’ve only been paying attention for the past 20 years (the 30 years before that I was being raised in an household with only liberal media, then I was too busy doing Marine things, then I lived overseas). I don’t remember any real newscasts in those 20 years, where the focus was on the facts.

    I’ve had many people tell me that Cronkite was the last objective news reporter; I remember him, but was too young to judge his objectivity and wasn’t paying much attention anyway. Recently (including this thread) I’ve seen evidence that Cronkite was not all that objective in his reporting.

    Those who have been paying attention longer: do you remember any objective news reporting, on tv, radio, or print?

    I have suspicions that it’s always been this way, but I’d like to hear your views.

    Having other sources sure is great!

  • Cotour

    Wayne, I really think that the Dems are now between a rock and a hard place and the public is watching and are spinning, spinning, spinning, they really can do nothing more and hope for the best.

    As for Star Trek analogies, we all agree that the Dem / Borg analogy is accurate, although I see their binary nature as being tested beyond the ability of cohesion.

    Kirk out, I mean Janeway out :)

  • wayne

    Smart wife! (she’s a Keeper!)

    I was too young myself to objectively evaluate Cronkite in real-time, now I know better.
    –just some quick remarks and off the cuff…
    You bring up an excellent point– opinion is indistinguishable from the “news,” to a large degree today.
    It’s difficult to compare “news” across Nations, given our 1st Amendment & the historical role of a free press in our society.

    Newspapers never pretended to be objective in our History. (Many had “Republican” or “Democrat” in their mastheads, and you knew exactly where they stood.)
    That morphed sometime in the middle of last century. They now all pretend to be “objective,” and the quality of writing changed dramatically when everyone started to attend Journalism School. (where they were indoctrinated by the left.)

    Television morphed sometime later, late ’60’s maybe (?). There is no clear distinction between opinion and reporting anymore. (if there ever was, I think it may be a matter of degree and disclosure. The current Press crossed that line awhile ago, and does not endorse disclosure.)

    I was always intrigued that the BBC, for example, had “news-readers,” and were not so focused on personalities, as over here. They had an agenda, but I get the impression it was not on the same level as here and now.
    “Reporters” never used to be super-duper educated elitist’s, if you could write well or present on TV, you had a career.

    How do they “report news” in Japan?

  • Garry

    I didn’t watch a lot of news in Japan; what I did watch was simultaneously interpreted, which made for awkward phrasing and intonation. By and large domestic political news was all party line (for most of the post-war period, there has been only one party, the Liberal Democratic Party), and, like most things in Japan, I always got the feeling that it had all been scripted by the powers that be.

    English language newspapers were about the same, and what struck me was the lack of obsession with events. For example, when something big happened (such as the Kobe earthquake) they would print a few front-page stories, but would not have dozens of stories from different aspects, dozens of graphics, etc., like we tend to do here.

    Part of that is cultural; Americans want to feel well-informed and have the illusion of control, whereas Japanese tend to go with the flow. We say “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” they say “the nail that sticks up is hammered down.” When I fly Japanese airlines to/from the US, I’m always struck by their announcements: for example, if there’s a delay, they’ll give long-winded explanations in English on the problem, what they’re doing about it, what we can expect in different scenarios, etc., followed by a very short explanation in Japanese such as “we’re sorry for the delay, it’ll probably be another hour.”

    Both tv and print in Japan had better coverage of international news than we do here, and unless it directly concerned Japan, it was generally heavy on facts.

    As an aside, sportscasts in Japan were very entertaining; regardless of sport, they always seemed to pair a very talkative sportscaster with one (usually a former star) who constantly said “so desu ne” (which means, roughly, “you’re right” or “that’s the way it is.”) If you took a sip of your drink every time they said that, you’d die of alcohol poisoning before the game ended.

    During my 8 months on ship during the Gulf War, our only news was BBC radio (which was also available when I lived in Japan). It did come across as less opinion-based than US news, with very robotic delivery by the news readers.

    Yet another tangent: my favorite Olympic story is Marine Lt. Billy Mills winning the 10,000 meters in Tokyo ’64 in a huge upset. The US sportscaster got very excited as he reported the finish, and as a result was fired.

    The newscaster in the Hindenberg disaster (who said “Oh, the humanity”) was also fired for getting too emotional on that occasion.

  • Cotour



    Now the French government must let it be known that all captured or killed terrorists
    1. will be shot without delay, and 2. will be buried face down, covered in pigs blood along with the head of a pig.

    Add to that the arrest and imprisonment of any family member or friend who is established to have any knowledge or suspicion of their acts and did nothing to stop it. Sounds uncivilized (and maybe it is) but this is the direction that these situations must be dealt with, you fight fire with fire in as reasonable and effective a way as you possibly can.

  • Jim Jakoubek

    Garry –

    The last journalist I remember and admired was Tim Russert. He was the host of Meet the Press and
    this man took no prisoners. Liberal or conservative, once you sat in the hot seat, you got grilled by him
    and spewing out some canned answer would only get the heat turned up.

    Sadly, he passed at a young age a number of years ago. It is a shame. He was IMHO a journalist and
    not some leftist talking head.

  • Phill O

    I watched the video clip and there is another interpretation.

    The media went first to the Hillary supporter (and the cameras followed) then to the Bernie supporter (with following cameras) and the guy shooting the video had nothig to do with getting the Bernie supporter air time.

    However, there is no doubt that CNN, ABC, MSNBC, NBC, etc are strong Dem supporters and Fox is a strong Gop supporter. The BBC is strongly liberal and alll Canadian channels are liberal. There was a consrvative channel that went belly up. They covered a native news story objectively and were sent home while the biased mainstream were allowed to brocast an altered (from facts) story.

    The long and short is that the whole world is facing the same type of problem, liberal bias. C.S.Leweis told the story well with his books about Ransom.

  • PeterF

    I’m pretty sure the quote about losing Cronkite came from LBJ after the Tet offensive. (Which by the way was a complete disaster for the North Vietnamese) (The US never lost a major battle in Viet Nam)

  • wayne

    You are correct on both points.
    Tet made for good anti-war TV, but it was a disaster for the North, and as well– we never did lose a major battle.
    That is well worth remembering.

    What still baffles me— we refused to area-bomb Hanoi & had some crazy rules-of-engagement. (As if we couldn’t reduce the entire city, to ash. Our political leaders chose to lose the war.)

    Tangent– the Internet Archive has an extensive collection of newscasts from WW-2, Korea, and Vietnam, and one can readily contrast/compare how the press behaved in each situation.

  • Garry

    Jim, I regret not paying more attention to Tim Russert; I neglected him because the only “journalist” my father praised more highly was Chris Matthews, and I didn’t want to be enraged!

    On the opposite end of journalism (in terms of purpose), I’ve become a fan of how Anderson Cooper handles interviewees for what are essentially puff pieces; he’s very respectful and engaging, but he’s not there to ask hard questions. In other words, I may not learn much that I find useful, but they are enjoyable exchanges to watch and refreshingly friendly and human.

  • wayne

    There’s an excellent Beck interview of Anderson Copper, from this May. They touch on politics but it primarily focuses on how he grew up having Gloria Vanderbilt as a mother & watching her essentially blow a huge portion of the Commodore’s money as she got older.
    He’s actually very humble. I disagree with his politics, but have grown to not instinctively hate him right out of the gate, for his reportage.
    audio only

  • Joe

    Garry, you didn’t like how Chris Mathews talked about how Obama was so presidential because he had a very sharp crease in his trousers? I stopped watching the networks about 20 or so years ago!

  • Joe: Chris Mathews was not the one who admired Obama’s sharp pants crease, that was New York Times columnist David Brooks.

    Mathews is instead remembered for the “thrill up his leg” when he listened to Obama speak.

    In both cases these guys reveal their incompetence and partisan leanings, but we must make sure we get straight the facts!

  • Joe

    My bad memory, sorry Robert, you are correct!

  • wayne

    Thanks– I was getting them confused myself!

    >let’s not forget this more recent jewel from the dandy-guy himself:
    “Mark Levin: David Brooks says Ted Cruz offers “dark and satanic tones”…”
    January 2016

  • Joe

    Point is, that any one listening objectively knows the mainstream is pushing an agenda, no self respecting reporter would utter the tripe these two talking heads are saying, Brooks and Mathews are partisan hacks, I think it was NBC’s 20/20 that had done an expose on General Motors c-series pickup truck side saddle gas tanks, the rigged some sort of incendiary device to get the trucks to catch on fire after being t-boned, as far as I know there were no repercussions for this stunt. Same thing with many other stories.

  • Garry

    Levin’s insistence that Chris Matthews hits the bottle hard makes perfect sense to me. Ever since I heard that, whenever I’m trapped somewhere with Chris Matthews blabbering on, I just keep in mind that he’s probably drunk, and I feel pity for him rather than outrage.

    Of course, he still does his damage, and I have no way of knowing whether he really is a drunk, but at least it keeps my blood pressure in check.

  • wayne

    Matthews IS a drinker, that’s a confirmed thing. Let your observational skills guide you as to whether he actively whacked, on-camera.

    He’s blathered on in the past about having “ADD” as well, which makes me wonder if he washes his Adderall down with Jack Daniel’s. “Good enough for quasi-government-work, eh!”

    He’s an effective shill in his echo-chamber, but fortunately his audience (as Levin often notes) “is less than airport radar.”

    In any sort of real Market-based economy, he’d be panhandling for quarters in Central Park.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *