Thanks, Zoe. And I agree that Shaw is head and shoulders above the others. Too bad he is pretty much retired. Lou Dobbs is pretty good. But the rest of them act like Fox and Friends on CNN. It’s ridiculous.
Last week, I happened to catch some show on Fox News that was covering the CA State Democratic Convention, where Howard Dean ranted about the impending war with Iraq. When they cut back to the two anchorpeople,* the man turned to the woman and derisively sneered “Well, looks like Howard Dean is to the left of Al Sharpton!” Nobody started a Pit thread about that. <shrug> Maybe nobody saw it. The point is that Fox “dares to try” an awful lot.
*a man and a woman, I don’t know if that helps anybody determine what show I’m talking about.
Yeah, I exaggerated. But still. I had had faith in CNN. My guess is that they made a conscious decision to be more aggressively liberal in order to offset Fox and get back some of their market share. It’s all about the money.
I still stand by my story. Bernie Shaw was far more rattled than his fellow reporters. A quick search shows me that Shaw is unapologetic about not wanting to be there and relieved to leave days after the war began. It turns out he was there to do a follow-up interview with Hussein, which fell through.
While it seems the incident has been carefully laid aside in light of the unquestionably courageous reporting which all of the CNN staff contributed to that night, I’m not the only one who remembers (see item #6).
And even better, I have the tape. Even better than that, I’m going over to my girlfriend’s house tonight to watch the war. Even better than that, if the war doesn’t go down at 6:30 pm EST tonight, as I suspect it might, I’ll just pop in the tape when my girl is in the bathroom and play the biggest practical joke I’ve ever tried to pull on her. I love you guys.
I have at least eight of the sixteen or so hours of the constant reporting that Shaw, Holliman, and Arnett gave in those first two days, so I’ve got a good chance of providing a transcript.
I wasn’t aware that people still watched CNN after that misguided attent to transform themselves into an “extreme” format a year or two ago. The mind boggles.
Yes I have just heard that the Boy scout association of Milan (Italy) has decided to throw it’s support to dubya. You know you are having trouble with the people you bought (A.K.A. allies) when an american official and I quote says “30 countries are with us and another 15 are also with us but they prefer to remain incognito”.
Colation of the Willing is a propaganda name, it tries to give the impression that the members of that so called coaltion are willing to face the opression, to face all dangers, to fight tyrany and to violate international law… well everything save the last statement.
Neither CNN is obligued to to call Bush BlowJobers that way unless they have publicity agreement. And certainly spanish speaking media (not even in spain) I have found that expression.
P.S. unless I am wrong about the meaning of libertarism, it seems to me that you are very conservative.
I swear I previewed, this should be:
Neither CNN nor anyone else is obligued to to call Bush BlowJobers that way unless they have publicity agreement. And certainly I haven’t found the expresion in no spanish speaking media (not even in spain)
Libertarianism is opposition to coercion, and I oppose this war. But that opposition does not force me to obscure facts, such as the fact that this is the third largest military coalition in world history.
—I have enough life experience to know what nuances of tone are in the English language.—
So does everyone else… and yet honest people still manage to disagree wildly about how they read such nuances, without anyone being an idiot.
“So-called” appears to be an appropriate description.
I have never called you an idiot.
Fox does this shit too often. The news anchor and his/her “friends” who are hanging out together (damned if I knew who these people are and why they are hanging out in a news studio) make it a point to pass comments while reporting news events. These comments, which is at best “tabloid editorializing”, are often derisive of the Left, Hollywood etc.
The distinction between plain news and spun news is getting blurrier and blurrier…
—I have never called you an idiot.—
You misunderstand: this was in reference to you saying that you are not an idiot, implying that you would have to be an idiot to misread the reporters in question. I was, and am, saying that people reading different things into someone’s tone and candor isn’t a matter on which idiocy is the big question. I don’t know what’s in the heads of these reporters, and I obviously have seen less of them than you have: I’m not trying to claim superior expertise.
But I do know from experience that when the question is one of tone, people are prone to wide disagreement that often remains ambiguous. You can reject that and say that you’re dead certain in this case given how blatant it was, and I have nothing with which to convince you, nor indeed any reason to convince you, since I’m not as qualified to form an opinion about coverage I saw less of than you did. It’s just that little of what you told us about struck me as being unqualified evidence of bias in this case (I certainly agree that CNN has had credible accusations against it of leaning left).
Right now, FoxNews is featuring a woman who’s son was killed in 9/11, getting her views about the justice of Bush’s war on Iraq. In other words: presenting a totally unasailable emotional appealiling figure, and then asking her leading questions that associate Iraq with her son’s death (without making explicit claims about what the connection actually is) and praising Bush without qualification, lauding him as standing at the crash site. She also offers the much needed example of a religious figure who feels ultimately that her beliefs can be reconciled with war (unlike many Catholics and the Pope)
What am I to make of this? The tone here seems highly manipulative, the choice of guest highly suspicious given the moment in history, guaranteed to allow them to make their editorial points while being completely sheilded from any controversy (how could anyone disagree with the mother of a martyr?). But, on the other hand, this is an eloquent lady who the administration, at least, feels is connected to the current purpose in Iraq. I can see how two different people can read this two entirely different ways, and frankly, I have no idea how I would decide which interpretation is correct.
I also hear “Leave Iraq, or Face War” and “Saddam hasn’t left: this leaves no other option.” This rhetoric is, as I’ve pointed out, potentially very misleading.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=170983
U.S. forces were set to enter Iraq no matter what, and the deadline had nothing to do with any contingent action anyone could take to prevent invasion. But, technically, what they are saying isn’t exactly false. What am I to make of this, and all the hay being made about an 8pm deadline that is, essentially, utterly meaningless? I certianly missed this distinction… but maybe I was just being unobservant, and the news agencies just didn’t feel the need to spell out something so obvious. The rhetoric of deadline is compelling and entertaining. So is this bias? I can’t claim to be able to nail it down and say “gotcha.”
Libertarian
I watched a few hours of CNN today and what I saw was detached journalism. By detached, I mean they were trying to portray this as a conflict between two sides without necessarily denigrating Iraq and Saddam Hussein. The people who took sides, the “so-called” analysts ;), were far and few. This is what is rankling you, perhaps. At worst, you could accuse them of morally equating US and Iraq, and at best, praise them for their detached tone.
Frankly, with the ethnocentric journalism that has come to typify US news channels, this is somewhat refreshing. It could be possible that we just haven’t been used to this and hence find it jarringly “anti-US” or “anti-war/anti-Bush”.
My $0.02
??? Maybe, if you’re really generous to Bush and you use a dynamic definition of “coalition,” it’s the third largest coalition in world history.
But for it to be the third largest military coalition, wouldn’t, y’know, militaries have to be involved?
My understanding is that there are less than half a dozen actual militaries performing actual military roles in this coalition. That’s not real impressive.
Daniel
FoxNews just reffered to the “so-called Dirty Dozen” in describing Iraq’s brutal leaders. But I don’t think they were trying to imply that the name was inappropriate, but rather that it was a moniker given to them by U.S. officials.
I think CNN did better today.
Maybe they saw my thread. 
Holy crap, that’s funny. Doesn’t mean you won’t deserve it when she kicks you in the nuts, but it’s still funny.
Oh, and one nitpick: To those who think the war will be a money-making boon to the media, the news channels are projected to lose several hundred million dollars in the first few days alone. Why? Even after the channels stop their urgent-no-commercial-break-wall-to-wall coverage and start making space for commercial breaks, there isn’t a single advertiser that will want its cheerful spokesperson urging us to consume in between footage of explosions and carnage. They’ll be lucky if they can get one company in fifty to commit to a five-second graphic: “Dell Computer. Supporting our troops since 6:30 eastern time.”
Links to actual transcripts showing exactly what is being said, and by whom, and clarifying whether the remarks are in the context of straight news coverage or commentary, would be helpful in determining who might be unprofessionally biased at CNN or Fox.