Wow! Zucker shows his true colors.

CNN’s Jeff Zucker Unloads on Fox News ‘Journalists’ at SXSW: ‘They Chose to Work at Fox’

As for Fox News’ response singling out its more legitimate news anchors, Zucker said, “They chose to work at Fox and they don’t get to hide behind the fact that they’re excellent journalists or anchors. The fact is they work at a place that has done tremendous damage to this country.”

Even Fox News stood behind Jim Acosta as a show of unity within the media. For CNN to step up and decide to declare all out media war, seems like a push into the land of no return.

Make no mistake, CNN is the place where their 2016 election coverage only managed to have one conservative on their election night round table (which included 8-10 people all together).  The fact that this sort of mirrors other media outlets, doesn't make it right. It just means that ALL of those media outlets have become biased and unfair.

To make some sort of proposition that Rachel Maddow is somehow not as insulting to conservatives as Sean Hannity is to liberals tells me that Zucker has his head stuck in the sand. This, of course, would explain why he doesn't see a problem with offering 90% liberal coverage to a country that is still more conservative than liberal as an overall political philosophy.

Zucker did think it was a “fair criticism” to say that CNN has at times allowed too many conservative commentators to spread false information on its air. “I do think that it’s important to hear from both sides, or all sides frankly, because if you don’t hear all sides then you wake up the morning after the election and you’re shocked that Donald Trump is president of the United States.”

This is basically Zucker (and liberals in general) losing touch with reality. He is actually having to defend providing ANY conservative opinions on his network. Apparently there are critics of CNN who believe that ONLY liberal opinions should be allowed, because (of course) conservative opinions are akin to "false information".

In the real world that most of us live in, there was no "shock" that Donald Trump won the election. We had Trump in Minnesota a couple of days before the election. The event was full capacity. They stopped letting people in hours before he spoke. People were pulling off highway 494, parking on the side of the road, and walking across a field to be a part of it. Trump was only a sideshow with no chance if you choose to ignore reality, and got all your information from CNN or MSNBC.

Moreover, many of the polls in the states that matters had been moving dramatically in his direction over the last two weeks before the election. He had taken the lead in some polling in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and other battleground states. How much of that was real movement, and how much of that was fake early polling being used as propaganda to make people think Trump had no chance is anyone's guess. All we know is those early polls were way way way off.

Certainly I think many were at least mildly surprised that Trump actually won, and some more so than others. But how much of that was because of CNN and other liberal news organizations spreading "false information" about his chances? Including the before mentioned horribly biased polling that showed Hillary winning nationally and in many battleground states by double digits.

I guess CNN having someone on their show correctly predicted Trump might win was akin to spreading "false information" because such predictions were not in line with the mainstream liberal groupthink.

But how can it be false, when it was proven correct?