CNN caught manipulating its panels

[angrychair]

MeidiasTouch has found out that CNN's panel of "undecided" voters had at least one plant. The one person that said they were supporting trump after watching VP Harris's acceptance speech is actually a trump supporter:

BREAKING: Last night after VP Harris' speech, one CNN "undecided voter" panelist said he'd now vote for Trump. We found his pro-Trump social media posts, including Trump's mugshot and disappointment that Mike Pence didn't overturn the election.

Post by @meidastouch

View on Threads

/?xmt=AQGzmUMfAm24l49xo03kBbVhSH1guh0B2cBOe-yKmtvuIw

[underpants]

1. Busted.

[Traildogbob]

2. And they planted them

A black one. Surprised they could not find a 14 year old rape victim that feels blessed by God for her coming Child.

[erronis]

69. God doesn't rape. He just immaculately injects his holy spirit into the (un)willing vessel.

Ask Mary.

[Traildogbob]

75. I sometimes

Try and imagine how Joseph dealt with it all. He never had sex with the Virgin, his wife, she tries to explain no penetration, not even the tip, and the public as a whole trying to believe the whole story.
Another question, does God have a penis, if so why?
And if you believe the whole tell, then God can not be female, right? If she is, where did the sperm come from, IVF? And ALL the God the Father stuff is Debunked.
And we always ask ourselves, how do people fall for the Jim Jones’s, the Davidian fools, and now why do people believe a word of trump?
Well, people have believed weirder shit from our beginning.

[The Third Doctor]

3. I knew it

[Tetrachloride]

48. code for "uppity"

and wrong side of the tracks

[lostnfound]

4. You can't expect them to, you know, vet their handpicked 'undecideds' panel nt

[Carlitos Brigante]

7. It's crazy, right? Since when are "journalists" expected to have access to the internet? Or

personnel on the payroll that have to do........ What's that thing called?....... Research?!!

[bucolic_frolic]

5. CNN fraud again

[oasis]

6. Big doofus mofo. Of course he'd be MAGA.

[PedroXimenez]

8. this other guy they had looked suspicious too

[Permanut]

41. I see what you mean .

Maybe something about the eyes?

[Thrill]

10. Of course. No rational undecided voter watches last night

And would choose Trump

[Silent Type]

11. Did CNN purposely "plant" them, or are we calling the trumpster a "plant" because it was

later discovered they were a trumpster.

I don’t believe anyone can be truly “undecided” at this point.

[angrychair]

13. It was CNN

That called them "undecided voters" therefore it would be logical to assume they were undecided voters that were properly vetted for this very important segment.

[misanthrope]

29. The most rational answer

is a violation of both Hanlon's Razor and Occam's Razor.

CNN didn't bother to properly vet the panelists, which included this one who lied about his bias.

[Abolishinist]

59. Thanks for the suggestions. I usually go for either Harry's or Gillette,

but I'll check these out!

OK, OK. I'm familiar with Occam's, but I must say not Hanlon's. So I looked it up, very interesting!

[erronis]

71. Very sharp reply. Shave and a haircut, two bits - for you..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shave_and_a_Haircut
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shave_and_a_Haircut_Door_Knock.ogg

[PedroXimenez]

61. disagreed, a better explanation is they wanted balance

everyone was positive toward Harris, they didn't want be accused of bias, so they went looking for someone they thought would be negative.

[JHB]

14. If CNN didn't do a basic check to see if they misrepresented themselves, is there really a difference?

[Silent Type]

15. For that kind of interview, I doubt anyone does a deep dive, costly, timely vetting.

I’d be ticked if they had some guy with a MAGA hat, but that is not what happened here.

[JHB]

18. You don't need to do a deep dive to find out a loudmouth hardcore Trump supporter.

Just as in past iterations of these panels, it's been easy to find out that the "ordinary undecided person" had been active in their state or local Republican party for years.

But somehow, nobody does so much as a Google search beforehand.

[misanthrope]

32. Exactly, laziness

Hanlon's Razor: Don't ascribe malice when incompetence will suffice.

[stopdiggin]

20. think you're probably right - in that 'plant' is probably an implication

that will fail hold up when it comes to solid evidence. Slipshod and a bit lazy, yes. But ...

Also think - you're simply not going to win any debates with this crowd. "It's CNN !" So, of course ...

[Voltaire2]

30. You require access to their social media

This is not a cia background check.

[SocialDemocrat61]

40. It's not like CNN is a multi-billion dollar corporation

with huge financial resources that can afford to do a ‘costly’ internet search.

Oh right, they are.

[niyad]

43. Well, exactly how much does it cost to type their name i to google, as

the most basic starting point?

[Silent Type]

44. Did you actually try searching under "Bryant Rosado?" You get mostly Real Estate stuff because that's what he does.

First few pages are mostly Real Estate, Linkedin, etc., stuff except for the Midiatouch article -- that BTW doesn't use the OP's title -- and an article appearing 1 hour ago.

Midias' title is: "Bring Back Trump"– CNN "Undecided Voter" Panelist Has Pro-Trump Social Media History.

The word "plant" is not used in the article.

[LuvLoogie]

50. So three mouse clicks counts as a deep dive these days?

[uponit7771]

57. There doesn't need to be a "deep dive" done, just cursory searchs

[Silent Type]

60. As mentioned in Post #44, do a cursory search using their name. You won't find anything unless you do a deep dive. Vast

majority of hits are about the guys real estate work.

[kcr]

63. If that is the case

then they shouldn't claim the panel is undecided. It is misleading. If it's simply too impossible to check, as you claim, then they can't have an undecided panel.

I think your claim is bogus, however. Checking facts and verifying sources is basic journalism.

[onandup]

64. Scrolling through his X posts to hit paydirt took about 60 seconds

He doesn't tweet that often.

He reposted this August 24, 2023.

Link to tweet

[SocialDemocrat61]

65. Don't need a "deep dive"

Found this in less than 5 minutes

Link to tweet

And I’m not a multi-billion dollar corporation with thousands of employees.

[riversedge]

46. Rosado has a very LONG history of tweeting Pro-Trump posts. Cnn did not vet him

a bit IMHO!


..........January 6th

Rosado indicated disappointment that Vice President Mike Pence refused to overturn the electoral college vote for Trump. Rosado replied "SMH," shake my head, to a CNBC tweet on January 6th reporting that "Mike Pence rejects Trump's call to overturn Biden election."

[kcr]

62. At the very least

they didn't bother to check. If they're going to claim that their panel is composed of undecided voters, they should at least make an effort to weed out partisans.

[JHB]

12. Glad it's being highlighted, but lets remember this is nothing new

In any number of past panels like this, plenty of the "undecided" turn out to be people who've been active in their state or local republican party for years, some having run for office. But someone manages to not do basic vetting and puts them on these panels.

[beaglelover]

16. They need to apologize for their inadequate screening of the panel every hour of every day for the next week.

[Hekate]

17. CNN has fallen a long way from 9-11, when my daughter called me from work & ordered me to turn them on

[ecstatic]

19. lol. I knew something was off about him

An obviously planted asshole who went out of his way to give her a low score on her speech. The good news is his bullshit didn't seem to sway others. He was the only one on the panel who said he'd vote trump.

[Botany]

21. Another "blacks for Trump?"

Paid off mother fucker

[czarjak]

22. Drawn sides are what they are.

Stand Strong. Stand Wrong?

[NewHendoLib]

23. Shocked, I tell ya. Not

I turned them off over a decade ago

[misanthrope]

24. The most parsimonious answer is that the panelist lied to CNN

not that CNN went to lengths to find then conceal him.

[JI7]

26. Nobody on those things is undecided

Real undecideds don't follow politics that closely. They certainly aren't going to end up on these type of panels. Real undecidsju just vote based on what they think is popular at the moment.

[IbogaProject]

27. gee Corporate Media supporting the GOP

Gee corporate media supporting the GOP rather then presenting balanced coverage? That is like asking if a bear goes potty in the woods.

[iemanja]

28. Well, maybe the Trumpster lied to CNN

It doesn't mean CNN rigged the panel.

[niyad]

35. On the other hand, this IS cnn we are discussing.

[Blue Owl]

31. Those shitweasels are trying to make tRump fail upwards by any means possible

[niyad]

33. Yawnnnnnnn. Colour me soooooo NOT surprised.

[TomSlick]

34. I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

To the extent needed:

[moondust]

36. CNN or CON?

[TNNurse]

37. I watched this morning.

They also gave grades on her speech. The ranged from A to C. He was the C. He said he was a realtor.
All of the others except one said Kamala. The holdout woman said she would probably not vote.

[Speaks2]

38. Plant?

I don't see anything indicating CNN manipulation. I have no problem believing it, but I also have no problem believing the individual (T supporter) lied in the first place and that CNN didn't investigate any of their focus group members.

[angrychair]

45. There are only two possibilities

CNN is grossly incompetent or complicit. There are no other possibilities.

[Speaks2]

54. Negligent

I'd use grossly negligent rather than incompetent, but you're echoing my statement, for sure.

[Meadowoak]

39. I haven't watched CNN since Ted Turner sold them.

And never will.

[Boomerproud]

42. Their credibility is zero. I'm sick of being gaslighted.

[Aviation Pro]

47. As soon as he opened his fucking mouth

And said that VP Harris got a C, I knew he was fucking sus.

[hay rick]

49. Undecided voters watching the Democratic Convention? Hmmm. Hmm.

I'm sure they represent the MILLIONS of voters who watch every minute of political conventions, interviews, etc. and are still uncertain about the difference between the two parties and presidential candidates. What a dilemma for those conscientious and conflicted citizens!!!

I call bullshit.

[Uncle Joe]

51. That did seem totally at odds with common sense and logic, considering the effect

on the rest of the actual undecided voters on their panel.

Thanks for the thread angrychair.

[Silent Type]

52. Well, if you are going to search under his name, you won't get anything in first several pages beyond

his work. See Post #44 if you want facts.

[republianmushroom]

53. Our unbi-ass news media.

Caught lying again.

[Freethinker65]

55. Ok. But is there also a possibility some were also pro Harris to begin with?

Honestly, many will say anything to get on TV. CNN failed again.

[Voltaire2]

76. Sure, that is why CNN had an obligation to do at least minimal vetting. NT.

[uponit7771]

56. ***THE M$M IS HELPING TRUMP !!!*** Without help from the M$M Trump would not be a reality host has been

[Luck Counts]

58. Just one more reason why

Just one more reason why I have stopped watching MSM.

[evemac]

66. Shocker.

Not really.

[GiqueCee]

67. CNN's reputation...

... has gone down the toilet, and ain't NOBODY gonna fish it out again.

[AllaN01Bear]

68. same old stuff.

[dlk]

70. I seriously doubt this is the first time

And I seriously doubt CNN is alone in this endeavor.

[Mysterian]

72. I know small town newspaper reporters

who have much higher journalistic standards than the scurrilous lice at CNN.

[Figarosmom]

73. YeH they are

Calling into Copan on the democrats line too. You can always when it's a magat because of the issues they say are important or say democrat when it should be democratic. They aren't fooling many I don't think but Shane on CNN . They think they can appease a madman.

[yellowcanine]

74. Yeah whoever set up that "undecided" panel should be fired.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

77. Shame on CNN

Link to tweet