What the fuck is with CNN? How the fuck do you go to Ralph Reed for an analysis of Edwards’ speech? Un-fucking-believable. Do you plan on asking Michael Moore to review Cheney’s speech? What the fuck is this horseshit?
You didn’t hear? They changed their name:
CNN = Crazy Nutjob Network
One thing is for sure, the media can be called unbiased becuase every other day it is republican or democrat. Never in between leaves it to be in between. Discuss amongst yourselves. I’m all ferclept!
This sounds like just the sort of thing a network might do. Listening to an opponent trash the speech is no more boring than listening to someone from the same party say it was perfect.
Your local Yid grammar and spelling Nazi checking in. It’s verklempt, or alternatively-though I’ve never seen it spelled this way-farklempt.
Yep, the convention commentary has had a stream of right wingers coming on to lie about the content of speeches without a challenge from the anchor monkey of the hour. The famed liberal media at work again.
And today they go to Ed Gillespe? :smack:
Heh…dayum librul media…
Seriously, who’d you guys expect to analyze the Democrats for CNN, Noam Chomsky? Al Franken? CNN wants ratings, and the quickest way to do that is to get some Republican on their air frothing at the mouth from the Democrats’ speeches, not wasting their time with some guy saying Kerry’s policies are good.
Ratings? You think people are going to switch to CNN just because Ralph Reed is speaking? Do the other networks let the people know that Reed is speaking so they can switch at the precise moment?
My friend, if you think that Noam Chomsky would say that “Kerry’s policies are good,” i suggest that you’re really not very well informed about Noam Chomsky.
I’d be willing to bet that he’d be much more critical of Kerry than most Republicans.
Makes sense to me. You get Edwards giving his biased spiel, you get someone with the opposite bias to dissect it. Ideally, whoever is watching has seen both the actual speech, and the dissection, and can make up their own mind about who’s full of more shit. Or, in the event of a tie, whose shit has more corn in it.
I assume when the RNC rolls around, they’ll have some hyphenated Kennedy bloviating about Cheney’s speech. It’s what passes for balanced journalism these days.
Hijacking a thread when there are BALLOONS to be discussed–tsk tsk!
What happened to the balloons? I was out last night and my tape cut out about five minutes after the diatribe. I was recording CNN and am very glad I caught it. They’re nets. You move the nets. How hard is it? I might have been cursing too.
They shouldn’t do that at the RNC, either. I’d rather see more objective people give an analysis than a partisan hack. That being said, it appears, for the sake of fairness, that CNN should give the democrats an equal opportunity to respond.
News is just so damn annoying nowadays. While letting partisans snipe at each other might make good TV, it certainly doesn’t inform the viewers as well as a more objective analysis might do.
Gee fellas. Why not watch PBS? Seriously. They do a good job of trying to be balanced. Lerher (the man with the button eyes) does a pretty good job of trying to keep things even. Bill Moyers tends to be pretty liberal, but he’s not offensive about it. Tonight there was some young guy trying to get Al Sharpton to say that Kerry is a hypocrite for being proud of his service in an unjust war (Vietnam).
Its all good. Besides, I can’t remember the last time I saw a good documentary on how to construct a catapult on CNN.
P.S. there was nothing about the ‘open’ mike on PBS. Just sayin’.
Who would be objective, among politicians? Nobody.
Then they’re back to the punditocracy. (The Capital Gang, Carville, Begala and Bowtie-Boy) Jeff Greenfield is about the only analyst they got.
Personally I think the anchors talk to pols for a respite. You try talking about nothin’ for 4 days! (Chris Matthews notwithstanding)