Podesta email reveals Colbert Was Instructed By Politicians What To Put On Show--Nice---

This is a very short story about the Colbert report, and getting instructions on what to do on his show. Colbert was told to do 2 special episodes about the Clinton Global Initiative University. I hope more comes out about this story. I found the Wiki entry link below.

Something sounds fishy. Craig Minassian (Chief Communications Officer Clinton Foundaton) talks about a show he had them do about CGI U. Maybe just a favor? Or was this instructions like the email says?

On April 10, 2013 Craig Minassian emailed John Podesta instructing him to watch the Colbert Report saying, “I hope you got a chance to see the The Colbert Report’s two special episodes i had them do about CGI U that we taped in St. Louis this weekend. This is the link to last nights with a sketch about commitments and the monologue and WJC interview aired Monday. Hope you enjoy and looking forward to your feedback. Next will be your Colbert appearance!”

https://__._/podesta-emails/emailid/46703

hiddenamericans.com...

If we're being honest with ourselves, most of the press were willingly doing stuff like this. Is it extremely biased? Yes. Did the Clinton's have to lean on them to do it? Probably not.

a reply to: seasonal

This isn't exactly a secret?



Bonus:

John Stewart did it too:

a reply to: seasonal

Well color me pink, who wooda thunk? - a main stream media outlet does a nice piece on Dodgy Clinton whilst all the time casting insults and jibes in the other direction?

Clearly, this is a loosing tactic, just like the MSM 'polls' - totally inaccurate rubbish.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

How many people did HRC burn to the ground with her failure to reach her birth right?

So many people thought she had the POTUS in the bag, wonder what they would have gotten in return?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Well color me pink, who wooda thunk? - a main stream media outlet does a nice piece on Dodgy Clinton whilst all the time casting insults and jibes in the other direction?

Colbert Report isn't journalism, it's a political comedy show (punditry at best). This was also in 2013 so what you're referring to wasn't happening simultaneously.

Perhaps you could explain how even if Colbert Report was an actual news show and this had happened during the election, how it would be worse than the unabashed campaigning of Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, etc?

a reply to: theantediluvian

I think this is just showing the collusion between the entertainment/news/politicians.
I wonder what other activities the "gang" is in on?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: theantediluvian

I think this is just showing the collusion between the entertainment/news/politicians.
I wonder what other activities the "gang" is in on?

some people just like to say "see it's not a giant dark conspiracy! people just work together."

and they miss that is exactly the problem.. Not the fakely framed giant darkness, but the collusion without admission.

One is led to believe a comedy show like colbert report was democrat biased, but just entertainment.

When the entertainment is sometimes NOT entertainment.. it's like wait you did that for the GOVERNMENT?

be honest and say you did, or when it comes out like this I lose a lot of naivete and love for colbert..

I'm BLUE to the bone, but the government should get their own TV show and they should do roundtables with regular americans who get lucky enough to be randomly picked to go on. Using in place entertainment media to pretend YOUR influence is entertainment is a lie and it's a wrong use of power.

It's simple.. LISTEN to Americans and you will be elected. Tell us what to listen to and we will not like you very much.

a reply to: seasonal

I have to wonder how much you really care about "collusion between the entertainment/news/politicians" though? What about these examples off the top of my head:

- Sean Hannity being an active part of the Trump campaign. Sean Hannity who has the #1 show on the #1 cable news channel and is #2 in political talk radio behind Rush Limbaugh.

- Breitbart becoming the official print media arm of the Trump campaign. Breitbart's CEO becoming his campaign CEO. Breitbart's chief funder becoming his chief funder, etc.

- CNN hiring the former Trump campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski who was collecting checks from the campaign and CNN for what was it? Two months? CNN paying a number of Trump surrogates including Kayleigh McEnany who is as it turns out, still on CNN (turn on CNN right now, I'm sure she's on there) with Jeffrey Lord, Scottie Nell Hughes, etc.

- Trump hiring right-wing media giant Roger Ailes to his campaign after he was forced out of Fox following the exposure of scores of instances of sexual harassment including multiple instances of retaliation/threats of relation.

- The National Enquirer (run by Trump's old buddy) coordinating with the Trump campaign to baselessly smear practically every other GOP candidate during primary season.

- Infowars, where Roger Stone was practically embedded, paying protesters to disrupt pro-Clinton events and actively campaigning for Trump. Oh and let's not forget driving the "Hillary for Prison" campaign.

a reply to: theantediluvian

those all sound like examples that conspiracy theorists were right all along..

We have to take them out one by one until this "buddy buddy" system dissolves.

Blue red or purple dudes who don't hold INTEGRITY as their top value shouldn't be informing Americans on what is going on.

Colbert is less guilty in the sense he isn't a "news" organization, but this is just as bad.


I've become less and less of a fan of his...

a reply to: Reverbs

Did you watch the videos? This wasn't a secret. Also, neither of the Clintons were in government in April of 2013. What this is right here is an attempt by some far-right news blog to sling mud at Colbert and claim that the Colbert Report is "fake news" controlled by the Clintons. To put it as Trump might:

No fake news! No fake news! Colbert Report is fake news!

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Reverbs

Did you watch the videos? This wasn't a secret. Also, neither of the Clintons were in government in April of 2013. What this is right here is an attempt by some far-right news blog to sling mud at Colbert and claim that the Colbert Report is "fake news" controlled by the Clintons. To put it as Trump might:

No fake news! No fake news! Colbert Report is fake news!

nah That's not what I get out of it.
Why does it matter who was in power.
It looks like they colluded with colbert for the stories.
Are you saying Hillary took a break from government in 2013?

Don't be partisan..

It's not cool for people in government to sneakishly push views forward through other people.

Don't jump to any conclusions..

Just it would be better if this practice stopped. I don't care who does it.

a reply to: theantediluvian

In this regard, I look more at subscriptions and view counts, Steven Colbert has a consistently popular YT channel, twitter/FB accounts as well as his actual TV show. He has a political slant to his shows, his most popular vids in the past few months are a testament to that.

IMO, Sean Hannity et al are the counter balance to that narrative & how you view that counter-balance can potentially define your political stance and for me I see outlets such as FOX, Breitbart etc as the consequential effect resultant from certain MSM outlets' having their opinions grab the national headlines.

Swings and roundabouts, checks and balances.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Do you think that she decided to run in 2015?

These things are orchestrated from years out, it is all about exposure.

I wonder what these entertainers would have gotten in return if HRC would have won?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

The way I see it, there has always been political bias in American media. Always. It doesn't upset me that Sean Hannity was in the bag for Trump. Fox's partisan lean doesn't bother me in the least. It certainly doesn't surprise me.

What I take issue with is the unequal applicaton of arbitrary standards as I see them demonstrated in this thread.

Colbert didn't do anything shady. Everything was completely above board. The live show was done in 2013 when neither Clinton was in office or campaigning. The live show wasn't broadcast on TV AFAIK. In this case we get language like this from the OP's newsblog source:

This isn’t a surprise to anyone who watches Colbert, but it does prove that Colbert is a bias shill who takes instruction from his democrat overlords and is part of the fake news establishment.

Then on the other hand you have Sean Hannity who has the top show on the top cable news network (14 years running and they have more than a majority market share — they're bigger than everyone else combined) who was an active part of the Trump campaign. Hannity hosted a town hall for him. He did ads for the campaign. He told his viewers/listeners to track down hoax videos about Clinton on YouTube. Hell, Trump used him as his alibi when called out in a debate about lying about having been against the Iraq War.

When it comes to any of that? Crickets.

As I said, I'm not particularly concerned about Sean Hannity or Lou Dobbs (except for his doxxing of a Trump accuser on Twitter) or Pirro, etc. I just feel that it's preposterous for people to be completely silent about egregious instances such as those and all of a sudden feigning shock and dismay over something comparatively minor.

There is nothing wrong with what Colbert did. Bill is a former sitting president and has been interviewed by many people. Colbert is not a journalist.

It's so sad to see this happen with Colbert and Stewart. Throw John Oliver in there as well.

No, they're not expected to be journalists. But they're not merely comedians either. People have come to trust them politically ( Stewart mostly ) and have witnessed them point out plenty of dysfunction in Washington.

This time around was a litmus test that they failed. I understand people have jobs they want to keep, but anytime someone steers your narrative you're doing a disservice to the viewers.

I wonder what they would say if they posted here. Colbert? You out there?

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

There is nothing to trust about them but that they'll be unfunny. It's not their fault that people buy that drivel.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
It's so sad to see this happen with Colbert and Stewart. Throw John Oliver in there as well.

No, they're not expected to be journalists. But they're not merely comedians either. People have come to trust them politically ( Stewart mostly ) and have witnessed them point out plenty of dysfunction in Washington.

This time around was a litmus test that they failed. I understand people have jobs they want to keep, but anytime someone steers your narrative you're doing a disservice to the viewers.

I wonder what they would say if they posted here. Colbert? You out there?

Especially Oliver. I noticed he seemed to be shilling a bit there over the summer.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Yeah, definitely. Even his DNC episode was more about Trump than the actual DNC. No mention of Clinton's scandals, which were piling up all around her at the time, and I remember a lot of people were calling him out on social media.

I liked John Oliver before the election. He said back in 2015 that he wasn't going to cover the election, than did a complete U-turn when the media started to dog pile on Trump. Everyone I know who used to enjoy his show thinks he's an idiot now.