Sometimes it is. They invite commentators to give their opinions all the time (or was it also not PBS’ place to let conservative columnist David Brooks call Jindal’s speech “insane” and “a disaster”?).
Unlike some, I’m not opposed to the idea that there is some level of liberal bias at CNN. In this instance, however, your case is exceptionally weak.
Have they cancelled Glenn Beck yet? Tell us about liberal bias at CNN after they have.
Actually, I think Glenn Beck moved over to Fox News, hasn’t he?
But Fox news is clearly a liberal mouthpiece, now that they have mocked Jindal’s speech:
That’s irrelevant to the question from Elvis and the response from Jack…
I thought Jindal was doing quite well until be referred to a peacock as a “rainbow chicken.”
Oh, I get it… That’s another 30 Rock joke, isn’t it? I was seriously trying to find out more about the context where he said that (maybe some stimulus money going to a peacock breeding program at a zoo, or something?).
For us Pacific Northwesterners, the salient problem with his speech was when he attacked volcano monitoring as wasteful. Try telling that to folks who live next to Mt. Saint Helens! More here. LOL!
Could you explain three things, please?
Why is it not CNN’s place to mock Gov. Jindal’s speech?
Who’s place is it to mock the speech?
What is it CNN’s place to do?
Thanking you in advance.
For the sake of clarity, allow me to restate my third question:
OP, I’ll let you decide for yourself if the speech was funny: Part One. Part Two.
WHile I tend to agree that the news media as a whole ARE liberal and overly eager to mock conservatives, two facts remain:
Jindal’s speech was underwhelming, at best, and occasionally embarrassing.
People who LIKE Jindal (including Rush Limbaugh) are NOT doing him any favors if they tell him he did just fine.
I repeat, Bill Clinton endured just as much mockery over his plodding 1988 speech at the Democratic convention. Johnny Carson ribbed him repeatedly. Clinton’s response was to appear on the “Tonight Show,” take a few lumps, and demonstrate both that he WASN’T really as inept as he’d looked AND that he was a good sport.
It may be demeaning and silly, but if Jindal has higher ambitions, he may have to do something similar. He’s done followup interviews on “Today” in which he came across much better. But he may have to do a round with Letterman or Leno and admit, “Yeah, I blew it, but I’m smarter than I looked that night”.
I agree.
Sorry. I forgot about this post.
Well, maybe it’s not. For most of my live however, the convention has been for news agencies to proclaim objectivity. This so as to maintain credibility. Once it becomes apparent that a reporter (or agency) has an agenda, the reportage itself becomes suspect.
Commedians; social satirists and commentors*; the public at large.
*If commentors are appearing on news programs or channels, it should not appear that the commentor is in league with the programs’s host and the number of commentors should not outnumber those presented by the other side.
You’re welcome.
I think Mr. Jindal should guest-star on 30 Rock. No, not joking. That’d be a good shot at turning the biggest slam against him around.
In his defense, he’s not saying that it’s wasteful. What he is asserting is that it’s not spending designed to accomplish the purposes of the bill, i.e.: stimulating the economy. From that standpoint, it’s just another piece of pork loaded into the bill in the hopes that it gets some votes from people who can say that they were helping the folks living in Washington and Alaska (and who knows, maybe Wyoming, the way things are going there around Yellowstone lately! :p).
The objective news being reported in this case was: “Jindal gives speech in extremely awkward tone and style”. The awkwardness was apparently not created by anybody’s bias since it has been reported the same from both the left and right.