CNN sets up a fully controlled audience panel to promote pro-establishment candidates using Bernie Sanders progressive agenda
An example of advanced psy-ops by the corporate media
globinfo freexchange
globinfo freexchange
As we wrote recently, the moment where the crowd inside the Fox ultra-right nest enthusiastically cheers in favor of a government-run healthcare system, could actually be considered a historical moment, thanks to Bernie Sanders.
The moment clearly depicts and officially marks the end of controlled audiences in controlled MSM environments. It shows that the well-paid MSM pundits and their producers are finding increasingly difficult to set up the scene according to the desirable agenda. Therefore, audience reactions can't be directed, or predicted in many cases by the MSM 'experts'.
The moment clearly depicts and officially marks the end of controlled audiences in controlled MSM environments. It shows that the well-paid MSM pundits and their producers are finding increasingly difficult to set up the scene according to the desirable agenda. Therefore, audience reactions can't be directed, or predicted in many cases by the MSM 'experts'.
Now, here is an example showing a successful set up through a controlled audience. It took place inside CNN and there is plenty of evidence that was indeed carefully set up. In the following video, Mike Figueredo of the Humanist Report felt optimistic, but also quite frustrated at the same time. Figueredo's reaction came out from a rather paradoxical position of the six voters that were shaping this panel.
In short, the big contradiction here, comes out from the fact that almost everything these people say essentially depicts 100% the rhetoric and the progressive agenda of Bernie Sanders. Yet, when the CNN host asks them to choose a candidate for the 2020 presidency, Bernie Sanders is barely mentioned! In fact, the closest you can get to the real progressive Democrats from their answers, is Elizabeth Warren! The rest are all 100% pro-establishment.
It's almost unbelievable the fact that the name of Bernie Sanders was mentioned only once. And finally, no one of the six voters ended up to mention him as the most preferable candidate. This is a good sign that this panel was completely set up.
Figueredo points out that these are people who were well-intentioned. They are not bad people, even if what they said is seemingly contradictory and even absurd. And he is probably right. Yet, still, that doesn't mean that this panel wasn't completely and carefully set up. Let us explain.
First of all, the small number of people in this panel is a very convenient parameter. A small group is much easier to be handled if something 'goes wrong'.
Second, and most important, it seems that these people were carefully 'picked-up'. Among millions of voters, you can easily find people with preferable views by setting, for example, a questionnaire with the appropriate combination of questions.
So, you now have a progressive agenda, which is very popular and very hard to debunk. Yet, you can find voters who believe that pro-establishment candidates are real progressives and will implement that agenda.
In fact, this is a quite clever type of psychological operation because it takes advantage of unsuspecting, ordinary people - who may indeed have good intentions - to drive moderate, or undecided voters, back to the neoliberal center. That is, away from 'crazy Socialists' like Bernie Sanders.
Furthermore, there is another, perhaps more impressive outcome you can derive from this example. That the establishment has a favourite among its options. The winner in this informal debate is Kamala Harris with three votes. Second, is Joe Biden with two votes. And the last option - and apparently more risky for the establishment - is Elizabeth Warren, who stands somewhere inside the 'Twilight Zone' between the real progressives and the corporate Democrats.
So, here is another strong indication that this panel was carefully set up. Not only to make Bernie Sanders disappear from the list of the most popular politicians, but even to put establishment's most preferable candidates in the desirable order.
The final conclusion is that such a set up panel is not representative of the real picture. We saw this also in many manufactured polls according to which, Joe Biden beats Bernie Sanders. Therefore, we wouldn't rush to express our big disappointment, like Mike Figueredo did in this video, when he said "we're doomed!"
Figueredo points out that these are people who were well-intentioned. They are not bad people, even if what they said is seemingly contradictory and even absurd. And he is probably right. Yet, still, that doesn't mean that this panel wasn't completely and carefully set up. Let us explain.
First of all, the small number of people in this panel is a very convenient parameter. A small group is much easier to be handled if something 'goes wrong'.
Second, and most important, it seems that these people were carefully 'picked-up'. Among millions of voters, you can easily find people with preferable views by setting, for example, a questionnaire with the appropriate combination of questions.
So, you now have a progressive agenda, which is very popular and very hard to debunk. Yet, you can find voters who believe that pro-establishment candidates are real progressives and will implement that agenda.
In fact, this is a quite clever type of psychological operation because it takes advantage of unsuspecting, ordinary people - who may indeed have good intentions - to drive moderate, or undecided voters, back to the neoliberal center. That is, away from 'crazy Socialists' like Bernie Sanders.
Furthermore, there is another, perhaps more impressive outcome you can derive from this example. That the establishment has a favourite among its options. The winner in this informal debate is Kamala Harris with three votes. Second, is Joe Biden with two votes. And the last option - and apparently more risky for the establishment - is Elizabeth Warren, who stands somewhere inside the 'Twilight Zone' between the real progressives and the corporate Democrats.
So, here is another strong indication that this panel was carefully set up. Not only to make Bernie Sanders disappear from the list of the most popular politicians, but even to put establishment's most preferable candidates in the desirable order.
The final conclusion is that such a set up panel is not representative of the real picture. We saw this also in many manufactured polls according to which, Joe Biden beats Bernie Sanders. Therefore, we wouldn't rush to express our big disappointment, like Mike Figueredo did in this video, when he said "we're doomed!"
Comments
Post a Comment