CNN Hosts Confront Director Of Anti-Obama Film About Falsehoods In Movie

From Media Matters:

From the August 27 edition of CNN's Starting Point:

 

 

 

 

 

00:00

 

00:00

 

 

 

 

 

 

ROLAND MARTIN (CNN contributor): Just curious -- how do you deal with folks who lie? So, for instance, I heard one of the women say, "Oh my God, taxes have gone up."  You look at the stimulus bill, actually, 40 percent of that is actually tax cuts.  So when you look at analysis of what has happened, taxes have actually -- they have not gone up. So when somebody lies in the film, what do you do?

STEPHEN BANNON (conservative filmmaker): These are called voters.

MARTIN: No, no -- right. But they also lie.

BANNON: Remember, voters can be low-information voters, they could be mid-information voters. We went and took a pool of voters, right, who voted for President Obama, who are active in the voter pool today, registered voters who are likely to vote. Some said they're not going to vote because they may not vote for President Obama. But we got their feelings. Some of them had information that's not absolutely perfect. I mean, some -- a lot of them didn't know a lot about Obamacare.

MARTIN: But if somebody lies, why include the lie?

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN (host): So it sounds like you're saying it doesn't matter to you if the information of the voter is accurate or if it's --

BANNON: No, it matters. But when they're talking about their own personal beliefs, some of that is in there. Absolutely.

O'BRIEN: So -- but taxes going up isn't a personal belief. It's a fact, right? So --

BANNON: Well, it's a -- it was a belief of hers.

Roland Martin accuses Romney of using ‘coded language’

By Eric W. Dolan/Raw Story

CNN contributor Roland Martin on Thursday accused Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney of using “coded language” when talking about African Americans.

Romney on Wednesday said those at the NAACP convention who booed him should “vote for the other guy” if they wanted government handouts.

“When I mentioned I am going to get rid of Obamacare, they weren’t happy,” the Republican candidate said. “That’s OK. I want people to know what I stand for. If I don’t stand for what they want, go vote for somebody else. But I hope people understand this, your friends who like Obamacare, you remind them of this. If they want more stuff from the government, tell them to go vote for the other guy, more free stuff.”

Martin said Romney was using coded language when he used the words “they” and “free.” Republican presidential candidates, such asNewt Gingrich, have received criticism this year for allegedly using subtle and indirect language to perpetuate racial stereotypes.

“We’ve seen that happened before with Republicans,” Martin said.

“I’m sorry, Roland. It is Will, just so I am clear, you’re saying he is using the term ‘they’ and ‘free’ as code for what?” CNN contributor Will Cain later asked.

“What I am saying is when he is they, when talking about ‘they’ and ‘free,’ I am saying that has been coded language that we have heard before,” Martin said.

“Coded for what?” Cain interrupted.

“Excuse me, I am going to make the point, from Republican candidates speaking of either poor people, speaking of African- Americans,” Martin continued. “We can talk about I remember the image of the welfare queen going back to the ’80s, what that looked like. And this morning on the morning show I interviewed Sophia Nelson who was a GOP general counsel, long time Republican and she also said this is one of the problems Republicans do, using certain language speaking of certain groups. That’s what I’m saying.”

Watch video, courtesy of CNN, below:

Why CNN Suspended Liberal Roland Martin For Offensive Comments But Not Conservative Dana Loesch

By Alyssa Rosenberg/Think Progress

Roland Martin has been suspended from CNN aftertweeting that, “If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl.” He then insisted that, rather than making a joke about violence against men who are attracted to men, he really just hates soccer: “@DrMChatelain @notjustsexuality well that shows how ignorant you are. I rip on soccer all of the time. Learn to pay attention!”

It’s the second time in a month that CNN commentators have come under fire for controversial comments: Dana Loesch recently cheered reports of members of the United States Marine Corps urinating on the bodies of dead Afghans and suggested that had she been present, she would have joined in. But while Martin apologized and will experience an indefinite suspension, CNN and Loesch refused to apologize for her remarks, and she’s remained on the air.

The clear difference between the two cases? A sense that CNN’s audience was offended. GLAAD, which keeps a careful eye on defamation against gays and lesbians in the media,moved quickly to call for Martin’s dismissal and to track the network’s response to the incident. CNN got the message that its own constituents were upset, and that it would suffer consequences — or at least a lot of annoyance — if it failed to act.

Loesch’s comments on the other hand, offended human rights advocates and decent people everywhere. But that’s not the same as running afoul of an organization with a well-established plan to respond to these kinds of events and a well-worn path to media outlets who would cover and amplify their response. While Loesch’s comments were reprehensible, there was also no organized group who was likely or able to hold CNN accountable for her words, and for continuing to let her appear on-air without penalty.

Taken together, the way CNN handled Martin’s and Loesch’s comments makes it look like CNN has no consistent internal values, and no internal standard for how to respond when it commenters express sentiments that are an anathema to those values. I’m glad to know, per CNN’s statement, that “Language that demeans is inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated.” But why should it take several days of consideration for CNN to arrive at that conclusion? If the network’s truly committed to the proposition that violence against gay people is no joking matter, that’s something it should know in advance, and CNN should have a personnel policy in place to determine what the appropriate penalty is when someone violates their standards. Similarly, whether Loesch’s comments violate CNN’s internal values shouldn’t be something that’s determined by the level of outrage outside the network’s headquarters.