Bernie TV debate coverage was shut down by CNN. John Ellis of BernieTV explains.

[madfloridian]

John Ellis 1 hour ago
+Quirin64 The channel is up but banned from streaming any new live events till 4.2016. The video is also blocked from view. The truth is being blocked from your view.

Kathryn Trevino 34 minutes ago
Your absolutely right. CNN cut off the last part of the debate, but Bernie2016tv carried the whole debate.

[Metric System]

1. They were transmitting CNN's channel?

[daleanime]

2. With permission....

until CNN changed mind.

[thesquanderer]

16. I don't think he ever had permission.

It seems to me like he took the fact that it was "publically available" (i.e. that they were allowing people to watch it for free online) to mean that anyone could take it and do whatever they want with it, which is obviously not the same thing (or else anything broadcast over the air would be available for anyone to do what they wanted with).

[daleanime]

19. I'm sure that's what CNN will argue.......

and if you think our elections should belong to those who buy them, so do you.



So do you?

[thesquanderer]

27. CNN made the debate free to watch, you didn't have to be a CNN subscriber.

In fact, it is the very fact that they did that that this guy is probably using to justify his position, but legally, that is shakey ground. SNL is free to watch, but NBC is within their rights to stop anyone from "rebroadcasting" it. Same with a televised ball game, the nightly news, or anything else.

The dem debate was also carried live for free by about 150 radio stations across the country. So between that and the free feed on the internet, it was freely available to almost everyone.

You could argue that maybe debates should only be televised by PBS and CSPAN. Regardless, the fact is, CNN broadcast this one, and they do have certain rights. And especially if the feed he captured included CNN's post-debate coverage (which was made available free online for a short time, probably inadvertently), it would be tough to justify someone else's re-use of that on any kind of "public domain" basis.

BTW, when Fox aired the Republican debate, they did not make it available online for free like CNN did. Figures.

[daleanime]

28. It's so hard to just say 'yes'....

sorry to have troubled you. Have a lovely evening.

[thesquanderer]

34. No, I do not believe our elections should belong to those who buy them

but I don't think this has anything to do with that.

CNN is not buying an election by restricting access to their broadcast. These are completely different topics. That's why I didn't directly answer your question, because as a reply to my post, I saw it as a non sequiter.

[madfloridian]

3. After watching whole explanation, seems to be more about unedited version of debate.

CNN did a lot of editing. If they pursue it I will understand better. Bernie TV has had it own You Tube channel. It aired the ending of the debate which CNN cut. I don't know a lot of the answers.

[cprise]

11. Does that mean the version on my DVR

from the initial broadcast has the UNedited version?

[cui bono]

13. Apparently not if you recorded CNN.

[cprise]

14. I don't understand... they edited the live version?

How much delay did they have?

[cui bono]

12. This is so strange.

How is it CNN was airing it "live" and editing it?

I see that comment that says they cut off the last part of the debate... I had it on at work so didn't get to pay too close attention and don't remember seeing the end. Did it seem abrupt?

[thesquanderer]

22. My guess...

When it was aired live, CNN's free online broadcast wasn't shut off the second the debate ended, the stream continued a while longer... enough time to fit in a whole post-debate interview with Bernie Sanders. I'm guessing that this guy's "rebroadcast" included that, whereas the "official" web version of the debate probably only includes, well, the debate.

[AtomicKitten]

39. CNN broadcast the live version, went back and edited it,

... posted the edited version replacing and taking down the original live unedited version on their website, and then went after BernieTV to take down the original live unedited version made available on their website

or at least that's my understanding of it

[onenote]

44. Not what happened.

CNN broadcast the live version. That version also was simultaneously streamed. After the debate some folks tried to repost the streamed version (which they had copied without CNN's authorization) on youtube (including Bernie2016.tv) and CNN took it down. To the best of my knowledge CNN itself has not posted a copy of the entire debate online, just selected clips. There are a couple of complete versions currently available online from other sources -- one of them has the entire debate as one clip the other splits it up into something like 16 shorter clips (which, if watched end to end, gives you the complete debate).

While I didn't see what Bernie2016.tv posted on youtube, it sounds like, from some of the comments, that it included more than the debate itself. If so, that is probably one reason it was taken down. Whether the other posts of the debate (which are limited to just the debate) were created and posted with CNN's prior approval is something we don't know.

[AtomicKitten]

47. I was just repeating what the guy in the clip said.

I have a copy of the original broadcast. When I have time, I'm going to try to figure out what was edited out. I'm curious.

[Fla Dem]

25. I don't understand. CNN edited the live debate real time while it was being broadcast?

How do they do that?

Or did he down load the debate video, to be shown on his channel and then CNN wanted the unedited version that was broadcast live removed from his channel to be replaced with the edited version. His commentary was not very clear.

Even if the MSM who are in the tank for Hillary won't report that CNN aired live an edited version of the debate, surely FAUX News would be all over it like bees on honey. They had reporters there, so they would have know that what was aired didn't show everything.

I'm confused.

[madfloridian]

26. That's all I know so far. Supposed to be more tonight on the topic.

[starroute]

4. You make it sound like a crime

CNN is a cable channel. It can be viewed only by subscribers who have paid for the privilege. This is not how the business of a democracy should be conducted. Walling off the debates in this way is as if polling places were located inside shopping malls that reserved the right to screen who would be admitted. It is unconscionable.

[cprise]

15. Very true. They walled it off from people without cable subscriptions!!

[thesquanderer]

17. No, in this case, they made it available online for free

without requiring (as they usually do) that you have a cable subscription.

[druidity33]

29. nearly 50% of this country

does not have high speed internet. I have satellite and if i chose to watch it it would've consumed my bandwidth for the rest of the month. I got a transcript online and watched the "good bits" on Youtube and here on the DU. Without it being on Broadcast TV, let's face it, far fewer people will see it.

[thesquanderer]

32. Even broadcast TV isn't available as widely as it used to be

with the switch from analog to digital OTA transmission. (I happen to be someone who lost most OTA with the switch. And I don't have cable/sat, either!)

But between those who have cable, those who have access to high speed internet, and those who were within range of the 150 or so radio stations that were carrying it, most people probably had access. There were also complete transcripts available in newspapers the next day, which could even be read for free at libraries, and could be read online even if you had only dial-up speeds.

Pretty much anyone who wants to be informed, can be. At least CNN did allow free access (unlike Fox, as I said).

None of this gives anyone the legal right to re-broadcast CNN's transmission. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I"m saying it is the way it is. If CNN doesn't want this guy posting it, that's their right.

In a sense, ideally, it would all be on CSPAN... except CSPAN isn't available to everyone, either.

[cprise]

35. "Most pepole" isn't enough

This is part of a general pattern of keeping poor people misinformed. But hey, at least they can turn to talk radio, right?!

[thesquanderer]

38. I agree that a free over-the-air version would be beneficial

It would be good if PBS were to broadcast it. That said, only 7% of households rely on OTA programming. Of course, there are also people without televisions, and households that don't have enough televisions for each person to be able to watch what they want to watch. FWIW, the debate was watched in 11% of homes with televisions (about 15 million viewers, with about another million viewing the online stream, according to http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/10/14/debate-scores-record-ratings-for-democrats/ )

Whether PBS should have broadcast the debate, though, is still a whole different topic than whether a guy has the legal right to put his own recording of the CNN broadcast on his Youtube channel. Also, putting it on youtube doesn't really increase access for the poor, as you still need high speed internet to view it. You can still get transcripts online, and that doesn't require high speed internet.

[cprise]

41. That 7% needs to see the debates more than anyone!

Broadcast is still important.

As for Youtube, they are important to people who are 'cutting the cord'. Many people, especially younger voters, do it to save money by shifting their viewing to the Internet.

[thesquanderer]

42. CNN did let the cord-cutters watch it for free.

Though also, please see my post #40.

p.s. -- ironically, I would not have been able to see if it were strictly OTA. I was only able to see it because of the free CNN stream, as I have neither pay nor OTA television.

[cprise]

43. The OP says they got cut off before it ended.

I don't like that 2 debates will be on cable channels. Dems are cutting candidates off from desperate people.

[thesquanderer]

46. CNN's free live stream was not cut off. To the contrary...

...it (probably inadvertently) went a good number of minutes past the end of the debate, to include some commentary, and notably, an excellent on-the-spot seemingly impromptu interview with Sanders by their reporter on the floor. As I mentioned, I suspect that is what the person in the OP's video is upset about not being available (obviously he is a Bernie supporter). If that's the case, it's not even really an argument about "video of the debate should be freely available to all," but rather a less altruistic "let me get all the good Bernie stuff out there!" The debate itself was happening in real time and not edited. I can't speak to the version of the debate that is currently available on the CNN web site, as I can't see that without being a cable subscriber. I would expect that it is missing the post-debate stuff, and maybe that's what the guy in the video means about it being edited. If they actually edited content from within the debate itself, that would be problematic.. but without some evidence, I'm not inclined to believe it.

[Action_Patrol]

18. Or Internet.

If it were worthy of ad revenue the networks would pick it up. They didn't.

[thesquanderer]

40. It did have ads.

BTW, the next 4 Dem debates are on OTA networks.

11/14 - CBS
12/19 - ABC
1/17- NBC
2/11 - PBS
3/9 - Univision

How and why CNN got the first one, I don't know. Maybe Debbie Wasserman Schultz, no big fan of debates in the first place, wanted the first one to have the smallest potential reach of the bunch. (Though as I mentioned elsewhere, only 7% of TV viewers are limited to the OTA channels, so the difference, while not insignificant, is not enormous, either.)

[Action_Patrol]

48. I stand corrected.

[Plucketeer]

5. I believe that's what he is saying

And with CNN's whole-hearted permission - until they decided to edit that footage to favor their favorite, the corporate queen.

[madfloridian]

6. Yes, that's what I think. It seems to be about edited footage.

[Plucketeer]

8. It's going to be interesting

to see if the preponderance of the web can overcome the cash of the corporate titans.

[onenote]

45. I've yet to see any evidence that CNN edited the debate.

Care to provide some?

[Babel_17]

30. Edited so as to choose camera angles?

They use multiple cameras so it's plausible that they might use the delay to choose which camera feed they prefer to use. Secretary Clinton was positioned in the middle so that makes it easier to have a good choice between among the left, center, and right, cameras.

If someone cared enough to show bias, they had the means to do so by choosing the camera feed that framed HRC the best. I alluded to this in a post in another thread, IIRC. Either way I certainly noticed that she was getting great camera angles.

Fwiw, this is a thing from TV shows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-camera_setup

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-camera_setup

Cheers, for example, was multi-cam. Scrubs, for example, was single camera (except for their Cheers tribute episode).

[turbinetree]

7. And this is what happens when .............................

you eliminate the Fairness Doctrine, and the license to operate under the Fairness Doctrine, because now it's based on greed


I saw what CNN broadcast, I wish I had degi-stream capabilities to have seen the unedited format, instead of the commercials.


Honk-------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[Enthusiast]

23. Honk!

[saturnsring]

31. what a giggling little a$$hole

[Enthusiast]

33. True

[Bubzer]

9. Spreading the signal.

[bkkyosemite]

10. I demand CNN to show us the true debate!

DU any attorney's that want to help on here?

[Dont call me Shirley]

20. Beacause it's CrapNotNews.

[No Vested Interest]

21. Who is this "John Ellis" ? Is it the John Ellis, cousin of the Bush family? nt

Last I heard cousin John Ellis was involved with Fox News.

[Darb]

36. I wondered the same thing. Let's hope not.....

for the Bernie supporters sake.

[abelenkpe]

24. editing video and photography can make

A huge difference in how an audience perceives things. Have spent twenty years in entertainment and seriously you should never believe anything you see or hear on TV or in film. CNN wouldn't be the first or last "news" station to edit recordings to support their particular slant. Seriously it happens everyday. News is not unbiased. Look at FOX. It's all propaganda and carefully controlled messaging designed to focus viewers on what the station and business owners want. Is it right? No. Is it legal? Yeah.

[Darb]

37. Sounds a bit like paranoia to me.

Not to mention "sky is falling" hysteria. There were numerous places to watch that debate, no?