Does CNN think we're stupid?

[Random]

A CNN story triggered this post, but my target is broader than that. It seems to me that, more and more, the media seems to assume that their viewers/readers are idiots.

I'm not talking about the subject matter, or the lowest-common-denominator level of communication. Rather, what annoys me most is the obvious flaws in so many stories or claims.

I watch very little TV. I gave up on local TV news 25 years ago. 60-minutes type shows have struck me as one-sided sensationalist crap for nearly as long. Network news used to be better, but it isn't what it used to be.

So for years, I relied on CNN and two Chicago sources -- the Tribune and a radio news station (WBBM AM). WBBM diminished in quality some years back. So lately, it's mostly been CNN and the Tribune online. In the last year, though, CNN has been annoying me more and more. It's becoming more like the other crap out there. Stories leave out key information, or bury it.

Is it stupidity, bias, laziness, or a design to make a more sensationalist story? I can't always tell for sure. But whatever the motive, it betrays an offensive contempt for the viewer/reader. W're not supposed to notice the gap or omission.

Here's a CNN video story from today's main page. (I can't figure out how to link to the video clip itself - it's the one about community guns. If anyone knows how to do a direct link, I'd be grateful for instruction.)

http://www.cnn.com

I'm not going to reveal the question (until a later reply) that I shouted to the screen 4 times as I watched. By the third time, I knew what the answer was, and I knew it was being deliberately avoided. The reporter finally gives the key information towards the end of the story, but downplays it. It undercuts the whole story.

This isn't an isolated incident. It's the same obvious crap advertisers pull:

"Our bleach kills lots of germs! Studies show that Chlorox kills 99% of germs on contract. No bleach is better at killing germs than new Chorox Plus! And Clorox Plus has the Chlorox EZ-pour spout. None of those discount brands can say the same. That's why Chlorox Plus is the best bleach you can buy!"

To me, the above ad screams: "Our bleach is exactly the same as all the other bleaches (except for the spout). All bleaches kill germs equally."

It's perfectly obvious from the word choice. But most people don't seem to get this. Even fairly bright people.

Advertisements like this don't really offend me any more. Ads aren't supposed to be fair and unbiased, after all.

News stories, though, are.

[Marley23]

Is it stupidity, bias, laziness, or a design to make a more sensationalist story? I can't always tell for sure. But whatever the motive, it betrays an offensive contempt for the viewer/reader. W're not supposed to notice the gap or omission.
I can't view the story from here, but what you're complaining about in general seems to be sensationalism, or perhaps a slanted advocacy-type story. News has basically gotten more sensationalist and violent (and also more celebrity-driven) over the years because it seems that's what people want to watch. Or at least, that's the formula many networks have adopted because it showed results for some networks in the early 90s.

[Random]

The question I asked? How many did you find?

(For those who haven't watched the clip, the story claims that there is terrible new & widespread gang gun problem. Community guns! Gangs are hiding guns in public places, so different gang members can easily share them when they commit crimes. They're in parks and playgrounds! Think of the children! A crime victim's sister says or implies that he brother might have been killed with a community gun, but the basis for this belief is never revealed. There's a picture of the dead guy. A bunch of short press-conference clips where law-enforcement types solemnly intone about the problem, and tell us of a new police initiative to combat the problem. Trained sniffer dogs. We see a couple of these. One's really cute! Then clips of careful searches of playgrounds and vacant lots by the dogs and handlers. Sniff, sniff. It's a bold new initiative that's already being implemented. CNN-guy's tone is very approving -- the program is being expanded!)


The answer, of course, is zero. No community guns found, which isn't acknowledged until near the end of the story. There's not one hard fact in the entire piece showing that even one such gun ever existed, let alone that this is a major problem sweeping the nation.

But the dogs were cute! And the idea of such a threat is scary! Kids might find the evil Community Guns! But we can all feel good about this bold new initiative to solve the problem.

Shit.



(Clearly, both gangs and guns are real problems. I have no doubt that at least one gang member somewhere, at some point in time, has stashed a gun in a playground. I wouldn't be shocked if someone pointed me to a story where a community gun was actually found by a child, who hurt himself with it. You won't find it in the CNN story, though. The one victim in that story isn't clearly tied to a community gun, and it certainly isn't explained how he would have been fine but for this scary new gang technique.)

[Ravenman]

:confused:

Clorox is now making guns to kill germs?

[Ravenman]

Oh. That makes more sense. I still can't find the video, but about a year and a half ago, I was on a jury for a murder trial. One of the witnesses admitted on the stand to carjacking two people while using a shotgun that was passed around the hoodlams at one particular crack den in this fine city. This witness stated that crooks would come in, borrow this shotgun, rob people, and return it. This apparently went on for some time before the defendants decided to kill a rival crack dealer in his home with that same gun.

So, it's not exactly what this horrible news story described, but somewhat similar. I don't know where that leaves us.

[Random]

:confused:

Clorox is now making guns to kill germs?


Yeah. Didn't you see what I said in the OP? It kills them "on contract". Tiny little mob assassins in every bottle.


(Typo. It was a typo!)

[tdn]

Clorox is now making guns to kill germs?
No, silly. "Studies show that Chlorox kills 99% of germs on contract." Clorox is hiring hit men. :p

In general I agree with the OP. TV news these days is 99% content-free.

[tdn]

(Typo. It was a typo!)
Damn simulpost. I think police should launch an investigation.*

*Into something completely different, but why mention that?

[Hampshire]

Don Henley pitted this same topic back in 1982 with his song "Dirty Laundry"

[Absolute]

Does CNN think we're stupid?

Yes. And, they're right. "We", meaning the general public, are a bunch of idiots.

[Random]

I still can't find the video....


It's on the CNN main page, entitled "Guns stored in parks, woods for thugs to share."


www.cnn.com


It can also be found in its "Watch Free Video" window, under "time share guns".

[Voyager]

CNN looks at the success of Fox News, and local news stations that pull this kind of crap all the time, and they know we're stupid.

Hell, is a search for community WMDs that turns up nothing any reason not to be alarmed and run around and shout?

[Marley23]

CNN looks at the success of Fox News, and local news stations that pull this kind of crap all the time, and they know we're stupid.
Right. The first station to do this crap was a Fox affiliate in Miami in the early 90s, and it worked. People are right to complain about this kind of news, but the people who watch it deserve a lot of the blame.
Hell, is a search for community WMDs that turns up nothing any reason not to be alarmed and run around and shout?
A search for WMDs that turned up nothing? Well, it's no reason to be surprised, that's for sure.

[Loopydude]

Sad to offer my agreement with many above. We're stupid. Really stupid. Get over it. By that, I mean, get over castigating big media outlets like CNN. They peddle edutainment at best, exploitation normally, and outrageous distortion on a slightly sub-par day. For a profit. They do this because they can, and because their job is to make money. Best thing you can do is turn off the tube and encourage your circle of friends and acquaintances to do likewise. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. follow the money. The money path, shock and surprise, has led them today to a place that makes the excesses of circa 1988 Geraldo seem quaint and full of idealistic integrity.

Don't like it? Stop giving them your eyes. Maybe if people would just tune out for a change, the money would flow somewhere worthwhile. Not that I'm counting on that, mind you.

[Random]

No, silly. "Studies show that Chlorox kills 99% of germs on contract." Clorox is hiring hit men. :p




I think I see a Saturday Night Live parody ad here.

You know that TV commercial technique that used to be popular - showing a simplified and anthromorphic cartoon of how the product works? The "scrubbing bubbles" one comes to mind. Combine that with the old ethnic cartoon ad: Frito Bandito, Lucky Charms leprachaun.

What do you get?

Little olive-skinned guys in dark suits with guns killing germs.

You think someone might get upset?

[Random]

Sad to offer my agreement with many above. We're stupid. Really stupid. Get over it. By that, I mean, get over castigating big media outlets like CNN. They peddle edutainment at best, exploitation normally, and outrageous distortion on a slightly sub-par day. For a profit. They do this because they can, and because their job is to make money. Best thing you can do is turn off the tube and encourage your circle of friends and acquaintances to do likewise. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. follow the money. The money path, shock and surprise, has led them today to a place that makes the excesses of circa 1988 Geraldo seem quaint and full of idealistic integrity.

Don't like it? Stop giving them your eyes. Maybe if people would just tune out for a change, the money would flow somewhere worthwhile. Not that I'm counting on that, mind you.


Yeah, sad to say I agree.

[Random]

Yeah, sad to say I agree.


Let me expand on this a bit.

I'm not trying to imply that this type of news story is something I've just noticed. Rather the opposite. It goes back just about as long as I can remember.

I'm long past being shocked by such things on the 10:00 local news, or on 60 Minutes. I've dealt with it by moving to more reputable sources of news.

What bothers me is that these are getting difficult to find, at least from non-print
sources. CNN used to be reasonably reliable, at least in the text parts of the online site.

The point is that CNN was one of the few remaining decent sources. It's less so today. I started to notice this kind of problem with CNN stories about 2-3 years ago. It used to be rare, but its quality seem to decline every year lately.

If the Tribune site goes the same route, I'm don't know where I'll go for current news.

THat's what bothers me.

[SkipMagic]

Here's a direct link (http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/law/2006/06/26/lothian.community.guns.affl) to the video.

[Tyrrell McAllister]

Here's a direct link to the Windows Media file of the Community Guns piece. You might need to copy and paste it into your player.

mms://wmscnn.stream.aol.com.edgestreams.net/cnn/law/2006/06/26/lothian.community.guns.affl.ws.wmv

[TJdude825]

If I may go slightly off-topic, are there any sources that you Dopers consider to be particularly good news sources?

[Leviosaurus]

CNN has been watching its viewership decline against compeitiors like Fox for years. What you're seeing is CNN's attempts to capture the Fox audience. These are Fox tactics.

Welcome to the new millenium :rolleyes:

[galt]

I like the dramatic dog slo-mo clip near the end.

[Loopydude]

If I may go slightly off-topic, are there any sources that you Dopers consider to be particularly good news sources?

None of them are perfect. The best is probably NPR, but there's a definite left-wing slant to some of the content. That said, it's simply the only widely-available source of news in the US that provides some straight news and commentary allowing both liberals and conservatives a forum for intelligent debate. That more conservatives don't tune in and encourage more of such debate is too bad. Maybe the majority of conservative listeners aren't interested in being challenged, I don't know.

[MelCthefirst]

I have noticed that CNN and in fact, most entertainment that comes out of the States (more than other countries), tends to think that the audience is stupid.
It doesn't have to be this way - wonder when it started happening? We all know there are no more stupid people in the US than in any other country, why pander to them?
If you watch the differences between the same show made in UK or Aus, and in US - it is very revealing. eg. The Nanny. In the UK version, it flows and lets the progress speak for itself. In the US version, we keep having to hear from all the participants explain what was happening, like we, the audience, are dumbasses who can't work it out for ourselves. eg. TV bloopers or takeouts. In the UK version, we just watch the clip and work out for ourselves what we find amusing. In the US version, we have an explanation of what we should be looking for and we get additional visual aids such as circled areas or arrows - to make sure the dumbasses watching, aren't being distracted by other non-funny things. I could go on. Not to say that excellent and clever stuff doesn't come out of the US entertainment industry, because it does - just seems that there is more pandering to the thick in the states than in other countries (and in NZ, I am qualified to say this as we have UK, US, Australian, Canadian and NZ tv shows).

[Subterraneanus]

The question I asked? How many did you find?

(For those who haven't watched the clip, the story claims that there is terrible new & widespread gang gun problem. Community guns! Gangs are hiding guns in public places, so different gang members can easily share them when they commit crimes. They're in parks and playgrounds! Think of the children! A crime victim's sister says or implies that he brother might have been killed with a community gun, but the basis for this belief is never revealed. There's a picture of the dead guy. A bunch of short press-conference clips where law-enforcement types solemnly intone about the problem, and tell us of a new police initiative to combat the problem. Trained sniffer dogs. We see a couple of these. One's really cute! Then clips of careful searches of playgrounds and vacant lots by the dogs and handlers. Sniff, sniff. It's a bold new initiative that's already being implemented. CNN-guy's tone is very approving -- the program is being expanded!)


The answer, of course, is zero. No community guns found, which isn't acknowledged until near the end of the story. There's not one hard fact in the entire piece showing that even one such gun ever existed, let alone that this is a major problem sweeping the nation.

But the dogs were cute! And the idea of such a threat is scary! Kids might find the evil Community Guns! But we can all feel good about this bold new initiative to solve the problem.

Shit.



(Clearly, both gangs and guns are real problems. I have no doubt that at least one gang member somewhere, at some point in time, has stashed a gun in a playground. I wouldn't be shocked if someone pointed me to a story where a community gun was actually found by a child, who hurt himself with it. You won't find it in the CNN story, though. The one victim in that story isn't clearly tied to a community gun, and it certainly isn't explained how he would have been fine but for this scary new gang technique.)
Kinda sounds like the original rationale for invading Iraq ...

[Guinastasia]

:confused:

Clorox is now making guns to kill germs?


No no, you fool! They're making germs that kill guns!

[Random]

Kinda sounds like the original rationale for invading Iraq ...


That's the third (essentially identical) Iraq/WMD one-liner so far. Did you miss the first two?

[ZebraShaSha]

That's the third (essentially identical) Iraq/WMD one-liner so far. Did you miss the first two?

He found them the same way we found WMDs: not at all.

And yea, I don't watch news anymore. These days I mostly read the BBC or Guardian from time to time, since they seem to be slightly less sensationalist than CNN, MSNBC, or the utter tripe that is Fox and friends.

Why can't we have an entire station of people like Anderson Cooper?

[AskNott]

They're doing the same thing with the "crystal meth epidemic sweeping our nation." The real numbers don't show any such thing.

[Subterraneanus]

That's the third (essentially identical) Iraq/WMD one-liner so far. Did you miss the first two?
Yes. I'm a fucking idiot. Don't forget to mark your scorecard.

[Harborwolf]

If I may go slightly off-topic, are there any sources that you Dopers consider to be particularly good news sources?I like NPR and the BBC radio service. Other than that, there's a whole lotta nothin.

What's really depressing is that just about all tv news is now pure garbage. It's not as if you can switch the station to the good news channel and support it. All you can attempt to do is find the lesser of the evils.

[Voyager]

I have noticed that CNN and in fact, most entertainment that comes out of the States (more than other countries), tends to think that the audience is stupid.
It doesn't have to be this way - wonder when it started happening? We all know there are no more stupid people in the US than in any other country, why pander to them?

As mentioned, because those who don't fail in a mass market. They succeed if they represent a niche who doesn't need advertising, like NPR. I get most of my information from the New York Times - not perfect, but pretty close.

I listen to the BBC World Service on my NPR station every so often, and the difference is amazing. BBC correspondents know their stuff, and they both ask hard questions of the world leaders they interview and don't let them get away with the evasive answers so common from US politicians.

As the familiar misquote of Mencken goes "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

[bup]

Yeah, I try to read what I can at the BBC and New York Times.

It's interesting that even in Ravenman's experience on a jury, the gun was always in someone's hands. That makes sense. Of course a crackhouse will have arms, and sometimes a gang member will take it out for some job. The stupid CNN piece tried to imply there are guns squirreled around town like Otis the drunk's moonshine.

[MelCthefirst]

As mentioned, because those who don't fail in a mass market. They succeed if they represent a niche who doesn't need advertising, like NPR. I get most of my information from the New York Times - not perfect, but pretty close.

I listen to the BBC World Service on my NPR station every so often, and the difference is amazing. BBC correspondents know their stuff, and they both ask hard questions of the world leaders they interview and don't let them get away with the evasive answers so common from US politicians.

As the familiar misquote of Mencken goes "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

How come other countries don't have the same "system" then?
Will the BBC get more money if they underestimated the intelligence of the British public?

[Polycarp]

Don Henley pitted this same topic back in 1982 with his song "Dirty Laundry"

Hence the tie to Clorox! ;)

[bup]

How come other countries don't have the same "system" then?
Will the BBC get more money if they underestimated the intelligence of the British public?The BBC doesn't try to maximize profit, being government-owned.

[OKFMDOA]

In Canada, I consider the national newscasts of CBC and CTV to be quite reasonable. Both are ad-supported, although CBC is publicly funded.

No comparison to Fox or CNN, from what I've seen of them.

[kaylasdad99]

The question I asked? How many did you find?

(For those who haven't watched the clip, the story claims that there is terrible new & widespread gang gun problem. Community guns! Gangs are hiding guns in public places, so different gang members can easily share them when they commit crimes. They're in parks and playgrounds! Think of the children! A crime victim's sister says or implies that he brother might have been killed with a community gun, but the basis for this belief is never revealed. There's a picture of the dead guy. A bunch of short press-conference clips where law-enforcement types solemnly intone about the problem, and tell us of a new police initiative to combat the problem. Trained sniffer dogs. We see a couple of these. One's really cute! Then clips of careful searches of playgrounds and vacant lots by the dogs and handlers. Sniff, sniff. It's a bold new initiative that's already being implemented. CNN-guy's tone is very approving -- the program is being expanded!)


The answer, of course, is zero.Well, of course it's zero! What do you think the CNN reporters are, a bunch of gang members

[kaylasdad99]

... uuhhh, there should be a question mark at the end of my post. Everybody just pretend it's there, okay?

[SenorBeef]

The guns issue seems to be the most dramatic issue when it comes to propoganda/slant. You will never, ever see guns in the news portrayed as anything but evil killing machines that come alive at night and shoot cute kids. I exaggerate slightly.

Of course, in this case, this is more a crime issue than a gun ownership issue - but as something I've been sensitive to, the media coverage is so ridiculously slanted as to qualify as propoganda.

[UncleBeer]

CNN has been watching its viewership decline against compeitiors like Fox for years. What you're seeing is CNN's attempts to capture the Fox audience. These are Fox tactics.

What exactly, are Fox tactics? Lazy reportage? Deliberate inaccuracies? Creeping sensationalism? Political bias? Pandering to the LCD? If you think this trend started with Fox News, you're sadly mistaken. It's way, way older than that.

[Happy Clam]

How come other countries don't have the same "system" then?
Will the BBC get more money if they underestimated the intelligence of the British public?
No, because the BBC is funded by the government, not ads, and they don't have to chase viewer ratings: in fact, they were recently criticised for being too populist by the Parliamentary select committee that watches such things.

[Leviosaurus]

What exactly, are Fox tactics? Lazy reportage? Deliberate inaccuracies? Creeping sensationalism? Political bias? Pandering to the LCD? If you think this trend started with Fox News, you're sadly mistaken. It's way, way older than that.
Yes, granpaw, I'm familiar with the history of yellow journalism in this country, and realize it wasn't invented in the last five years :rolleyes:

The fact remains that of the major cable news networks, Fox is the most blatantly sensationalist, home of the most most paranoid and content free stories, and the most devoted to bells and whistles and shiny objects instead of actual hard news. Fox also has the highest ratings. CNN is imitating Fox, not William Randolph Hearst.

[tashabot]

In reference to the OP:

In most journalism classes nowadays they teach you to write at a third-grade reading level and not use big words because people nowadays just aren't intelligent enough to grasp a word like colloquialism or elloquent or pretty much anything with a random Q, Z, or Y stuck in there. It's sad, really, it is, but unfortunately - it's TRUE in a lot of cases. Grab your random joe off the street and quiz them on vocabulary, and then ask them if they read the news.

They do think you're stupid.

~Tasha

[bup]

In most journalism classes nowadays they teach you to write at a third-grade reading level and not use big words because people nowadays just aren't intelligent enough to grasp a word like colloquialism or elloquent or pretty much anything with a random Q, Z, or Y stuck in there...
They do think you're stupid.I don't mean to sound confrontational - but do you have a cite for that? I'm truly interested in finding out what journalism classes teach that assume collective idiocy on the readers' part.

[UncleBeer]

Yes, granpaw, I'm familiar with the history of yellow journalism in this country, and realize it wasn't invented in the last five years :rolleyes:

The fact remains that of the major cable news networks, Fox is the most blatantly sensationalist, home of the most most paranoid and content free stories, and the most devoted to bells and whistles and shiny objects instead of actual hard news. Fox also has the highest ratings. CNN is imitating Fox, not William Randolph Hearst.
Ah, I see now. By Fox tactics, you meant the most current version of the tested-and-true media-hack-derby tactics.

[Beadalin]

I don't mean to sound confrontational - but do you have a cite for that? I'm truly interested in finding out what journalism classes teach that assume collective idiocy on the readers' part.
I graduated from a reputable school with a degree in Journalism and Mass Communication. For all press releases and news articles, we needed to write at an 8th grade level. Sometimes, depending on the audience, we were told to write at a 6th grade level.

In my current job, external communications for my company are written at an 8th grade level, too.

The philosophy behind it is something along these lines:
We know that not all of our readers will have a high-school education. We do not want to alienate any potential readers. More sophisticated readers can still get the information they need when it is conveyed in simpler language; the inverse is not true. Therefore, write in simple language guaranteed to be understood by all readers.

Every publication will have its own standards about what level to write to. The Wall Street Journal writes at what is considered a 10th grade level; but 8th grade is more common.

[Beadalin]

I should maybe add that I graduated in 1998 -- I don't think the standards have shifted since then.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

None of them are perfect. The best is probably NPR, but there's a definite left-wing slant to some of the content. That said, it's simply the only widely-available source of news in the US that provides some straight news and commentary allowing both liberals and conservatives a forum for intelligent debate. That more conservatives don't tune in and encourage more of such debate is too bad. Maybe the majority of conservative listeners aren't interested in being challenged, I don't know.
Every single story n PBS has a representative from both sides. If not they explain how they tried to get one. Sometimes I get annoyed when equal time is given to polluters and crooks. NPR does the same. We are so used to seeing one sided stories that we cant recognize a neutral stance when we see it.
Link tv with Democracy Now, Source Code and international news is the best we have available. Iy came with my dish satellite.
We are so used to right slanted news that we think being balanced is slanting left. All large media is big(huge) business. The business as usual slant is mainstream news. Protect profits.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Who would have believed a parody like Network would turn out to be the truth.