I don’t know what bias it reflects, but CNN is now reporting that somebody found a copy of the Bill of Rights laying around.
Oh, the irony. I’m just surprised Ashcroft didn’t quash the story.
I can’t find a link to it, but I’m pretty sure the Onion had the same story a couple of weeks ago.
Daniel
from Sofa King:
I’m not sure what your point is. I listened live that night too. Was Bernie scared? Yes – which he freely admited. He didn’t try to pretend to be anything other than what he was. Did he continue to report from under the bed? Yep. Was he the only one who took cover? No. They had agreed that two would hide under the bed and the other elsewhere. That way, if someone came to force them out, there was a better chance that one of the reporters would be left to continue coverage.
He left the same day that Holliman did.
I do, however, think your idea for the practical joke is hilarious. Too bad that you had another war to watch tonight.
More notes on early wartime reportage:
A local radio anchor was talking to ABC’s Ann Compton this morning and he commented that Bush’s dinner with his wife last evening was probably the last quiet dinner the President would have for awhile. She replied that Bush had it “pretty easy” compared with U.S. military commanders, and that she’d seen him leave the Oval Office last night walking his dog.
I guess we’re supposed to think Bush is lying around relaxing, except for stirring on occasion to OK airstrikes.
And an ABC Radio News correspondent this morning noted that the Iraqi Scud missile response to opening U.S. shots didn’t hit any targets or cause casualties, but claimed that the missiles had a “psychological” impact and sent U.S. troops “scurrying” for their trenches.
I thought I was hearing Radio Baghdad.
I was flipping between CNNHN and FoxNEWS last night, kinda to see which network reported things first. These reports were concurrent. I was watching the text at the bottom. Fox was saying there were “double digits” of cruise missiles, CNN said “two dozen”. Fox said the target of the bombing was “one or more of 5 top leaders”, while CNN reported it was Saddam himself. CNN is telling much more specific things, so specific they are wrong. Fox was keeping general, telling as much as they could confirm.
CNN lies.
Many others have addressed my points regarding the OP. For my money CNN is the most unbiased TV news source there is. I watch it all the time. (I don’t get MSNBC, so I can’t comment on them.)
Isn’t there a saying like “Don’t attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence”? 
Seriously, I haven’t seen any TV news outlet which doesn’t make plenty of honest mistakes. Why does it seem to me that only CNN is accused of bias when they make an honest mistake? :shrug:
UncleBill, you are suggesting that when CNN first reported “two dozen” cruise missiles that they were willfully lying? :rolleyes: The cruise missiles came from two entirely different directions. I suspect that CNN’s first report was from one of their reporters on a ship at just one of the launch site. They quickly updated the numbers as more information became available.
It seems more reasonable that CNN had confirmed the “two dozen” number at that point. Do you think that CNN just pulled a number out of their ass?
So who exactly is lying here?
As far as I’m concerned, CNN has more sources and that’s why they might have more specific information.
The same complaints here about Nic Robertson were hurled at CNN during the first Gulf war. Before this war started Robertson would commonly report what the Iraqi government was saying (news? check.) Then if asked about what the Iraqi people were saying, he would report what they were saying in public (news? check.) and then he would explain what Iraqis were saying in private (news? definitely.) I don’t watch FOX much but perhaps they only reported Iraqis private opinions. Maybe that was why they were kicked out of Baghdad before the war even started.
Personally, I would prefer some restricted on-site reporting over none. And how timely, the bombing that just occurred was reported by Robertson and he included specific details about the targets that were hit. After a time he said that the Iraqis did not want him to provide specifics in his reports. So he won’t do that anymore and he will be allowed to continue reporting. This ain’t rocket science to figure out folks. (BTW, Robertson was just asked about his “minders” and it was pointed out that he is in a “ticklish” situation.)
And for what it’s worth, I agree with the view that Bernie Shaw was an embarrassment. I just cringed during that episode and kept hoping that he would just shut up. He was a fine anchor, but a war correspondent he’s not.
I love this, as if our troops should just stand there in the open “like men” while missles come their way. :rolleyes:
Well, although there may be 30+ countries including the ones allowing the US to use their airspace and land as a launching point, there are only 4 countries that actually have a combat role. Maybe they should be could The Coalition of the Most Willing, and the 30+ group, The Coalition of the Reluctantly Willing.
Dan Rather: We have no confirmation but we hear from some sources that the initial attack was an attack of opportunity and MAY have been against top Iraqi leadership.
Wolf Blitzer: We are now trying to find how many civilians were killed in this opportunistic attack.
Fox: Saddam is dead and that’s a double.
—And an ABC Radio News correspondent this morning noted that the Iraqi Scud missile response to opening U.S. shots didn’t hit any targets or cause casualties, but claimed that the missiles had a “psychological” impact and sent U.S. troops “scurrying” for their trenches.
I thought I was hearing Radio Baghdad.----
Radio Baghdad is playing Iraqi patriotic music.
I also heard Ollie North in a gas mask talking about the fear of situation, and how everyone had been hurried into bunkers. I guess he’s turned traitor too.
One way to break down an opponents morale and reduce his fighting capacity is to make him spend a lot of time wearing a gas mask–they’re hot, stuffy, smell bad and make it a labor to breath. Of course making troops all keyed up to go into action climb in and out of protective gear and climb in and out of bunkers has a psychological effect. So does loss of sleep. So throw an occasional missile at them. It is a tactic used since the First World War. It’s what we did in Vietnam and called “harassing and interdicting fire.” Now it is giving aid and comfort to Saddam to tell the truth?
New bitch with CNN. These people are supposedly educated, the graduates of the best journalism, communications and film schools in the country. Why in the name of all that is decent can’t these guys tell the difference between CAVALRY and CALVARY. For a while even the crawler script was telling us all about the Seventh Calvary (sic.) racing across the gravel flats. Damn it! The word for horse mounted soldiers generally is CAVALRY. Abbreviated as “CAV.” The interchange of the words just make CNN look ignorant. Stop that.
Requiring precision and exactitude in real time reports and perfect use of the elegant and flexible English language is unreasonable.
I’ll bitch later about damn near everybody’s tendency to call an incoming missile a “Scud” when there is no way to tell without a minute examination of the wreckage.