CNN: you are so full of shit

The BBQ Pit
1

You are a dried up old prune. You lie. You fabricate. You editorialize the news worse than Fox ever dared to try. In your desperate opposition to Bush and his war, you have resorted to dishonesty and spin. I have zero respect for you. You’re a joke.

I oppose the war, too. But I don’t make up reasons to oppose it the way you do. As one example, you sneer at the Coalition of the Willing by prefacing the phrase with “so-called”. You do this not just in editorial debates but in delivering the actual news. (Yes, I’m looking at you, Wolf Blitzer.) You actually said that four nations comprise the “so-called Coalition of the Willing”.

Huh?

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan — and even France has now said that there are certain conditions under which it would join the coalition.

Four?

You reported all day long with Judy Woodruff and Nick Robertson operating as Saddam’s spokespeople, telling us what the Iraqi ambassador said about Bush being stupid and what Saddam’s murderous son said about Bush being a criminal.

You are a fucking joke.

I’m certainly not one of those if-you’re-not-for-us-you’re-against-us people, but you have deliberately and consistently pushed so far on the side against Bush that you are clearly biased to the extreme. You used to be my news-source of choice, and now you’ve driven me to Fox and MSNBC. Fox is biased, yes, but at least they don’t make stuff up and broadcast the opinions of a mass murderer as though they had moral weight.

Gah. You are so full of shit.

2

GWB excluded? :wink:

Welcome back, BTW. It’s nice to see you, Lib. :slight_smile:

3

:smiley: Thanks, Diogenes. Just venting a bit. I don’t think I’ll be able to hang around very long, though. But good to see you, too!

4

But it’s perfectly legal for them to lie!
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm

5

You think they would rejoice that a war will most likely give them a bump in the ratings.

6

Legal, yes. Ethical, fuck no.

I was schooled as a journalist and worked in the field for a while. Horseshit like this is the reason I left the business. I got tired of being forced to deliver simple gists of complex situations, simplifying to the point of inaccuracy and placating advertisers by withholding information that might “tarnish the reputation of the community.”

Being a PR whore might not be the highest aspiration I’ve ever held, but at least it’s slanted upfront, rather than hiding behind alleged objectivity while delivering only partial facts in order to serve a quiet agenda.

7

I guess what pisses me off most is that they’ve put me in the position of defending GW Bush. :frowning: But damn.

8

I disagree. Journalism involves reporting the other side of the issue independent of its merits. It is always better to let the viewers look through the deceit and lies than report US-centric views and opinions all day blacking out the other side. Iraq is still a nation-state with a leader (a brutal dictator, yes) and representatives to the UN, a day away from a war, and NOT giving them any air-time would be needlessly ethnocentric and biased.

9

Well, I agree with you. I’m no Bush supporter. But Fox gave air-time as well to Saddam’s guys. But not all day. And not presenting it as though it were some sort of refutation. And putting it in the context it deserved, namely that of the pot calling the kettle black.

Plus, in another instance, Nick Robertson reported on a “massive protest” in the streets of Iraq. But I saw the actual footage on MSNBC, and it was a few dozen guys waving guns while the camera accidentally panned too far showing that there was emptiness on both sides! It’s been that kind of crap all day long.

10

—You editorialize the news worse than Fox ever dared to try.—

Even if everything here you said is unquestionable full of shitness, I don’t see how it makes them somehow worse off than FoxNews as far as editorializing during coverage goes, not to mention constant spin and framing.

—As one example, you sneer at the Coalition of the Willing by prefacing the phrase with “so-called”.—

Why would simply calling it the “Coalition of the Willing,” essentially someone’s marketing phrase, without comment be any less a matter of editorializing? If you aren’t willing to accept that “Coalition of the Willing” is a fairly prejudicial term (it doesn’t have to be), then I don’t see why you are willing to see “so-called” as prejudicial either. In news parlance, it’s generally used to preface names given to things by people other than the news agency.

—You reported all day long with Judy Woodruff and Nick Robertson operating as Saddam’s spokespeople, telling us what the Iraqi ambassador said about Bush being stupid and what Saddam’s murderous son said about Bush being a criminal.—

Uh, so did FoxNews (I can’t say that they gave the statements any “moral weight”… but how exactly did CNN do this?). Are you accusing them of bias or giving moral weight to a murderer just for reporting what Iraqis said? Or did they editorialize it in some way you haven’t described? Did they fail to editorialize in a way you think they should have in their news coverage? I don’t see a problem with news organizations reporting what people on both sides of a conflict have to say, regardless of how bullheaded and dishonest they’re being.

I also don’t see how that can be portrayed as anti-war anyway: if anything, quoting their nasty threats is a great way to drum up more hatred for them here. It’s not like they were well argued, eloquent bits of quibbling.

11

Well, deceitful reporting is not to be condoned. If this did happen, it will appear that Nic Robertson and/or CNN have a biased agenda. But, how sure can we be that the footage on MSNBC is what Nic Roberston was referring to?

(And, I refuse to believe that any news channel can spin and editorialize more than Fox!!!)

12

—And not presenting it as though it were some sort of refutation. And putting it in the context it deserved, namely that of the pot calling the kettle black.—

See, in my understanding, that would have involved framing the issue to make an editorial point. I think the statements were given a pretty obvious context: they were the threats and thrashings of a threatened regime, and they pretty much guarantee war, given the ultimatium on the table.

I don’t see why CNN would be dedicatedly anti-war: I mean, the last Gulf War made them. They have almost certainly expended millions already deploying reporters to cover the action. They seem more likely to be pro-controversy and protracting everything than against a war.

13

The coalition members themselves call it that, Apos. CNN’s “so-called” attachment smacks of editorialism to me. I can see Carville calling it that on his point-counterpoint show, but not Blitzer while at the same time lying about the numbers.

And as I already explained, CNN’s presentation of Saddam’s agents were in the context of moral rightness, with Nick Robertson reporting live from Bagdad. Constantly calling the US “isolationist” and so on all the while. (Grossly inaccurate.) Little interspersed "but"s and "nevertheless"es. Tone of voice. Facial expression. Two-word quips and so on. Hell, Apos, I’m not an idiot. I even oppose the war. But I know what I see on CNN is extreme bias. And I think it sucks.

14

The coalition members themselves call it that, Apos. CNN’s “so-called” attachment smacks of editorialism to me. I can see Carville calling it that on his point-counterpoint show, but not Blitzer while at the same time lying about the numbers.

And as I already explained, CNN’s presentation of Saddam’s agents were in the context of moral rightness, with Nick Robertson reporting live from Bagdad. Constantly calling the US “isolationist” and so on all the while. (Grossly inaccurate.) Little interspersed "but"s and "nevertheless"es. Tone of voice. Facial expression. Two-word quips and so on. Hell, Apos, I’m not an idiot. I even oppose the war. But I know what I see on CNN is extreme bias. And I think it sucks.

15

Incidentally, if what you say is true about their policy, then it is remarkable that Blitzer used “so-called” but right now, Lou Dobbs is not. He is saying simply “the Coalition of the Willing”.

16

So if Saddam decides to start calling Iraq “The Forces of Light and Goodness,” then CNN is supposed to just repeat it without any kind of qualification, i.e., “The Coalition of the Willing today is poised to launch an all-out assault on The Forces of Light and Goodness.” Or would that fall under the part of your where you complain that CNN should not report on anything Iraq has to say about the matter? I’m so confused.

(Not to mention astounded that any of the complaints in the OP were lodged in the first place. What’s wrong, Lib? You don’t trust the people to be able to tell the difference between Saddam’s bullshit propaganda and Bush’s bullshit propaganda?)

17

“So-called” is not a sneer, nor is it an implied one. Using the phrase “so-called” means that they are acknowledging a term that is in use, but not by them. “Coalition of the Willing” is not a formal name for anything. It’s a term Bush used to comprise several (but not all) countries who are in support of Bush’s proposed military action.

Again, it’s not a formal name. A sneer would be the “so-called United Nations” or “the so-called Homeland Security.” Those are real names, and thus a sneer is implied with “so-called” because it implies that one or more of the words is false. I hope that made some sense.

Moreover, Bush himself referred to England and Spain as with him/the US in the Coalition of the Willing. I have never heard him name any other countries as part of it, only Britain and Spain.

18

Well, technically, four of the “willing” nations are actually putting up troops, according to the Washington Times. That’s the U.S. (roughly 200,000), U.K. (about 18,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (200).

Everyone else is “willing” to reap whatever spoils they can gather by offering troop placement, airspace use, training facilities, and the like.

But they’re not willing to get their asses shot off.

19

minty green good point. I never thought of it that way.

20

Maybe CNN is just ticked because they didn’t get to make up the goofy name, like they’re used to? :slight_smile:

Seriously, though, “so-called” just means that that’s what some people are calling it, and it’s not exactly an official organization with a title…

Secondly, Saddam and his sons are effing hilarious; why shouldn’t CNN give them airtime? The challenging to a duel, the call for Bush to resign instead; it’s a soap-opera with a real-life bombing for what might be the series finale.

If this is the best you can come up with to bitch about CNN, why exactly are you posting this “so-called rant”?

(Also, on NPR this evening, the reporter slipped and said “Coalition of the Winning…err…Willing”, which may be rather accurate in a week or two)