Soldier censored just before giving support to Ron Paul.

[FrostedxB]

Just saw this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TSxm2V8aVQ

Made me go huh, what a coincidence.

Supposedly they came back to him later on but I haven't seen any video of it yet. Dunno what to really think of it, were they REALLY trying to censor something or did CNN actually lose the feed. No one in the room seemed too concerned as they jumped over to Romney news.

 

[morgs]

Apparently this happens a lot in political based interviews.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Wow they couldn't have been more obvious about this. The reporter interviewing him blinks her second set of eyelids twice a milisecond before it cuts, obvious lizardry going on here.

 

[Krynn72]

I'm not seeing it. Why would they specifically interview someone at Ron Paul's camp just to cut him off? Looked like technical difficulties to me. :/

Also, how could you see her eyelids when she was facing the other way?

 

[Bad^Hat]

I've said too much.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

Interest in this article dropped steeply after I read the last two words of your topic title.

 

[Yuri]

tin foil hats, get em here, get em cheap! tin foil hats everybody!

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Interest in this article dropped steeply after I read the last two words of your topic title.

Because as long as it ain't our guy, we'll still call it ethical journalism, am i rite?!

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

No it's unethical alright, I just can't be bothered to wharrgarbl about it.

 

[Stigmata]

Because of who it supports?

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

Alright, I should clarify. I first came in here just to be all "Noone cares about Ron Paul lool" but really, after observing the video for myself, it appears to be an unfortunate technical difficulty. I would think that the point he was making has already been said all over the place, not to mention by Paul himself, which would hypothetically remove any motivation to "silence the dissident." Just a glitch, that's how I saw it. It doesn't surprise me that Ron Paul supporters are going to see it as an intentional act, just as I might be inclined to think so if a liberal interviewee were similarly interrupted on Fox News. So let Ron Paul supporters wharrgarbl about it, but perhaps because of my bias, I just don't see it that way.

 

[Krynn72]

The thing is, Ron Paul supporters often do jump to conspiracy theories about how the media is intentionally ignoring them and Ron Paul. And that's not entirely without cause, since it is quite apparent that there's an intentional lack of coverage on him, but this situation isn't an example of it. I'm with Mutoid, its not surprising that people would see it that way, but I'm not going to get upset about this particular incident. Getting upset about the general lack of coverage is a valid thing though, and I could get behind that.

 

[Maestro]

The thing is, Ron Paul supporters often do jump to conspiracy theories about how the media is intentionally ignoring them and Ron Paul. And that's not entirely without cause, since it is quite apparent that there's an intentional lack of coverage on him, but this situation isn't an example of it. I'm with Mutoid, its not surprising that people would see it that way, but I'm not going to get upset about this particular incident. Getting upset about the general lack of coverage is a valid thing though, and I could get behind that.

Has anyone seen the Daily Show segment about how the media ignored and continues to ignore Ron Paul? It's a very real phenomenon. He scares them because he doesn't tow the party line.

 

[kineaesth]

Apparently he was cut off not to censor his support of Ron Paul or what have you, but because he was violating the Army's Military Conduct Code - soldiers in uniform are not allowed to give political opinion or portray any political opinions as those of the army in general.

 

[Bad^Hat]

He scares them because he doesn't tow the party line.

Toe.

char

 

[Krynn72]

Toe.

char

Nope, republicans tow the line with their Dodge Ram trucks with Hemi engines, like real Americans do.

 

[Stigmata]

Toeing lines is for commies. Real Americans go all the way

 

[Maestro]

Nope, republicans tow the line with their Dodge Ram trucks with Hemi engines, like real Americans do.

I'm not kidding when I say this is the exact image that will come to mind forever more when I think of Republicans and partisan votes. Regardless, w and e are next to each other on the keyboard, my bad.

 

[Raziaar]

Apparently he was cut off not to censor his support of Ron Paul or what have you, but because he was violating the Army's Military Conduct Code - soldiers in uniform are not allowed to give political opinion or portray any political opinions as those of the army in general.

It's true! You can't express an opinion about the people who send you to war indefinitely.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Apparently he was cut off not to censor his support of Ron Paul or what have you, but because he was violating the Army's Military Conduct Code - soldiers in uniform are not allowed to give political opinion or portray any political opinions as those of the army in general.

That's still not right for cutting off a privately owned newsfeed. If it was government mandated feed cut, then that's unjust censorship. If it's the network purposely cutting the feed on their own, then that's terrible journalistic integrity and unethical. Let the man speak his mind, and if he is in violation of any rules it's a matter for the Uniform Code of Military Justie and that soldier to sort out later, not the feds censoring private news.

 

[kineaesth]

That's still not right for cutting off a privately owned newsfeed. If it was government mandated feed cut, then that's unjust censorship. If it's the network purposely cutting the feed on their own, then that's terrible journalistic integrity and unethical. Let the man speak his mind, and if he is in violation of any rules it's a matter for the Uniform Code of Military Justie and that soldier to sort out later, not the feds censoring private news.

It's CNN. I'm pretty sure that they'd err on the side of cutting off anything that was breaking a broadcasting law. Cutting off that feed meant protecting both them and the soldier speaking.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Maybe this is a naive question, but if it's against regulations for soldiers to voice political opinions, and CNN is concerned about this, then why'd they ****ing ask him for it?

 

[kineaesth]

The journalist holding the microphone that is shown on television is not representative of CNN as a whole. This journalist is certainly not the producer of the show, and has very little to do with the team of people that will necessarily be involved in dealing with the ramifications of a broadcast broaching some set of standards. Whether or not the journalist is at fault is completely arbitrary, because in a live setting a question about politics in general could very easily lead to the person being interviewed giving a completely separate answer.

The crux of this cutoff, if it was indeed a manual censorship of the feed, is that if a code of conduct for the US Army was breached, CNN would prefer to not be a possible accessory to this act.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

It's CNN. I'm pretty sure that they'd err on the side of cutting off anything that was breaking a broadcasting law. Cutting off that feed meant protecting both them and the soldier speaking.

CNN is not subject to the UCMJ. The soldier is. The military's rules or wishes have no bearing on what CNN may or may not do. The UCMJ is not law applicable to civilians. There is no broadcasting law to be broken in that situation- it's terrible journalistic integrity.

Example: I get drunk and get a soldier drunk who is on duty. He is subject to punishment under the UCMJ. I am not, nor can I be charged as an accessory to his UCMJ violation or anything like that. Only if I was another military enlisted/officer.

 

[kineaesth]

While legally/technically that may be true (I do not know - I find most of the literature on this topic incomprehensible without my law-student partner there to translate), I believe that the producers in charge of monitoring a live feed would not be able or allowed to make split-second decisions regarding the absolute legality of the content they are producing, and would have mandated procedures which would, again, err on the side of caution

 

[Stigmata]

"Folly is the cloak of knavery."

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

While legally/technically that may be true (I do not know - I find most of the literature on this topic incomprehensible without my law-student partner there to translate), I believe that the producers in charge of monitoring a live feed would not be able or allowed to make split-second decisions regarding the absolute legality of the content they are producing, and would have mandated procedures which would, again, err on the side of caution

I honestly think it was done to limit Paul publicity by the producers. Anyone with common sense knows you are not subject to military rules unless you're IN the military.

 

[Krynn72]

I honestly think it was done to limit Paul publicity by the producers. Anyone with common sense knows you are not subject to military rules unless you're IN the military.

I honestly think you're foolish for thinking that. Anyone with common sense knows that a news organization wouldn't have sent their reporters to a Ron Paul event and air a live interview only to then censor any support for Ron Paul. Its like driving out to a store so you can buy some delicious pistachio nuts, only to then park in the parking lot, not get out, and immediately drive back home. Nobody would do something like that unless there were extenuating circumstances.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I honestly think you're foolish for thinking that. Anyone with common sense knows that a news organization wouldn't have sent their reporters to a Ron Paul event and air a live interview only to then censor any support for Ron Paul. Its like driving out to a store so you can buy some delicious pistachio nuts, only to then park in the parking lot, not get out, and immediately drive back home. Nobody would do something like that unless there were extenuating circumstances.

Claim media coverage being given without actualy allowing good word out for the candidate. I'm not saying there's some big organized conspiracy, it's just behavior I'd expect more from producers at MSNBC towards a candidate with these political views.

It's really not all that crazy or wild to happen, nor does there need to be some big organized effort to do so. It's that predominately left wing media 'coddling' culture. Romney and Obama are the mainstream media's babies, they dont want any coverage to taint them right now (by taint, I dont mean negative press, I mean to get less coverage/ratings)

 

[Stigmata]

Rakurai, you have an odd habit of being correct up to the point where you start blaming things on "the left-wing [thing]". In this case, it's incumbent corporate greed vs political freedom, not the left wing vs a Republican candidate - especially when Paul is arguably more left-wing than any other candidate in the race.

You blame it on the left wing in one sentence, and in the next you clump together Obama with Romney as the idols of the media. Your logic doesn't fit.

 

[morgs]

I also think it was intentional, there's been a Ron Paul blackout in the news for a long time now.

 

[CptStern]

that would imply he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning the republican nomination

 

[Wanted Bob]

that would imply he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning the republican nomination

This is something I've been really confused by. I dont consider myself to be at all knowledgeable when it comes to american politics, but the policies of Ron Paul seem to totally go against the party he is representing. Am I missing something here?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Rakurai, you have an odd habit of being correct up to the point where you start blaming things on "the left-wing [thing]". In this case, it's incumbent corporate greed vs political freedom, not the left wing vs a Republican candidate - especially when Paul is arguably more left-wing than any other candidate in the race.

You blame it on the left wing in one sentence, and in the next you clump together Obama with Romney as the idols of the media. Your logic doesn't fit.

It's because I do a poor job of representing what I mean to say or rather what I tend to look at as conventional wisdom. I just tend to believe the idea of coddling candidates grows from these MSM outlets traditionally sheltering left wing candidates (with the sole exception of Fox News, which swings the same but the other direction.) However, during the primary for Republicans, they use that developed skillset to highlight whoever brings them the most ratings (since none of the candidates are 'left wing') when really the reporting should be focused on the best debate/voting/political performer.

that would imply he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning the republican nomination

I think he's got a decent shot this year. If he had fair media coverage I think right now we'd just be waiting for Paul vs Obama in November. Just wait until California and states like it hold their primary, I expect some striking Ron Paul wins. I also expect him to consistently place 2nd around the entire country, while Romney, Santorum, etc will place 1st in some states, yet 5th in others, etc.

This is something I've been really confused by. I dont consider myself to be at all knowledgeable when it comes to american politics, but the policies of Ron Paul seem to totally go against the party he is representing. Am I missing something here?

Wrong. Of the two parties, they are closest to the Republican Party platform. They don't match totally, but they're closer to Republican than Democrat. Now- matching the party platform and tradition vs matching what Republican candidates and Presidents/Congress have done recently are two different matters entirely.

 

[CptStern]

Ross Perot had a snowball's chance in hell as well