Mr.Badguy
Super lefty
So you say. Get back to me when you think you can post something substantive.
Like a gif, right?
So you say. Get back to me when you think you can post something substantive.
Was it edited? If so, maybe the same people who edited the "Jim Acosta manhandles WH employee" tape.![]()
So you say. Get back to me when you think you can post something substantive.
Like a gif, right?
CNN has a different business model than Fox News and MSNBC, despite them all competing for the 24-hour news viewer. Fox News and MSNBC have gone whole-hog for the talking head format, albeit from different partisan angles. Most of their coverage falls into one of three buckets: (1) a partisan firebrand spinning the day's stories (Hannity/Maddow), (2) an anchor at a desk doing a fairly neutral run-down of the day's reporting done by other outlets (essentially, reading the work of the AP, UPI, and the major newspapers), while introducing short video clips of political functionaries reading their respective talking points, and (3) having two or more partisans sitting on camera, yelling at each other about a given topic for half an hour. The benefit of that model is that it's cheap to produce, other than when it comes to paying the celebrity on-air talent. You don't need to maintain a bunch of bureaus all over the world, you don't need to bankroll investigative journalists for months on end until they finally have something ready to go on the air, you don't need to fly people around to get on-the-scene coverage, etc. CNN has been moving in that same direction for over a decade, but it still has vestiges of its old business model, back when it was "the world's most important network." It still has a lot more actual journalists, and resources staged around the world. That's why when there's a sudden, big story that can't be handled just by putting braying heads into a studio room to yell at each other, CNN's ratings go up. If there's a tsunami, or a major terrorist attack, or a space shuttle blows up, or a war starts, etc., CNN is more likely to be able to get people on the ground to cover it, and more likely to have the stable of experts, translators, fixers, contacts, and the like needed to get the story and get it well. Then, once the breaking-news portion of the story has passed, people drift back to Fox News or MSNBC (depending on their politics) to hear comforting spin about the story. So, it's not particularly surprising that CNN, alone, had someone there. Fox News and MSNBC would have been more fixated on booking celebrity partisans to come to their respective studios armed with talking points about Stone, for after the arrest, rather than going into the field to cover it actually happening.
It's as if you're trying to confirm that you're a badly programmed bot, by carefully avoiding any response that shows the slightest awareness of the content of the post to which it is purportedly responding. What you posted could have gone equally well (or, rather, equally poorly), as a response to any post ever made here. That's some really lousy AI you've got there, bot.
Josh Campbell
I note that you failed to post any evidence that CNN -alone of all the networks & media in the world - "simply sent two people to stake out the house," DEMOCRAT.
I think I know why.
Loser.
![]()
For those wondering about the mechanics of the FBI’s early-morning arrest of Roger Stone, Mueller says in court filing his team was concerned Stone might destroy evidence or flee if he was notified about the charges in advance.

Who knows what to believe out of the News Fakers lol?
Look at how wrong they got the MAGA Teen story when there was plenty of video evidence to get it right the first time. Now they tell us they were just diligently watching Mullet’s machinations when they sent a crew out to pull an all-nighter at Stone’s house.
Who knows what to believe out of the Fake Newsers.
News stations often keep track of the 'proper " courthouses. They get a hint and run to cover a potentially big story.
.I thought grand juries were ‘secret’ lol.
I thought grand juries were ‘secret’ lol.
Mueller says.
Mueller also famously said that Saddam had WMD. Did you swallow that utterance uncritically?

You don't? Think carefully before you answer, old friend.
Fuck off yourself.
I am not offering stupidity at all. You don't like what I AM offering, because it makes you realize what a jerk-off you are being.
I didn't know that.
Now you do.
Yet you appear to hang on his every pronouncement as if it's Holy Writ these days.![]()
