PDA

View Full Version : Scrubbed! CNN yanking tea party 'embarrassment'



Rockntractor
04-20-2009, 09:52 AM
Cable television news network CNN has attempted to block a video on YouTube.com that shows "tea party" protesters in Chicago confronting the network's reporter Susan Roesgen over her allegedly biased and "not fair" coverage of the event.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95525

Odysseus
04-20-2009, 10:38 AM
Cable television news network CNN has attempted to block a video on YouTube.com that shows "tea party" protesters in Chicago confronting the network's reporter Susan Roesgen over her allegedly biased and "not fair" coverage of the event.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95525

On what grounds? They can't claim copyright infringement without eliminating all of the other CNN videos on YouTube. If they're upset that Roesgen's conduct reflects badly on them, perhaps blocking her from going on the air is a better solution.

FlaGator
04-20-2009, 10:44 AM
On what grounds? They can't claim copyright infringement without eliminating all of the other CNN videos on YouTube. If they're upset that Roesgen's conduct reflects badly on them, perhaps blocking her from going on the air is a better solution.

Technically it is their property and they can choose the videos they want to grant public access to and which they don't. They don't really have to state a reason because the copyright infringement rules can be applied on a individual basis. Under the law, I believe, it is up to them to raise the issue and they can either raise it collectively or ala carte.

Rockntractor
04-20-2009, 10:52 AM
On what grounds? They can't claim copyright infringement without eliminating all of the other CNN videos on YouTube. If they're upset that Roesgen's conduct reflects badly on them, perhaps blocking her from going on the air is a better solution.
I have a hunch she will be terminated soon.

Rockntractor
04-20-2009, 10:54 AM
Technically it is their property and they can choose the videos they want to grant public access to and which they don't. They don't really have to state a reason because the copyright infringement rules can be applied on a individual basis. Under the law, I believe, it is up to them to raise the issue and they can either raise it collectively or ala carte.
I have heard that there is third party video of that event.Can they block that to?

FlaGator
04-20-2009, 11:07 AM
I have heard that there is third party video of that event.Can they block that to?

They can not block that. The incident took place in a public area so the tapeand it's images are the property of whoever shot it.

enslaved1
04-20-2009, 11:41 AM
Cable television news network CNN has attempted to block a video on YouTube.com that shows "tea party" protesters in Chicago confronting the network's reporter Susan Roesgen over her allegedly biased and "not fair" coverage of the event.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95525

That's exactly why I saved a copy as soon as I saw it. I wondered how long it would take before it vanished. What our friends at CNN forget is that once it's in the tubes, it's out there forever.

hazlnut
04-20-2009, 12:26 PM
CNN needs to take it on the chin... Every network has clips on youtube that are embarrassing--but don't represent the network as a whole.

Rockntractor
04-20-2009, 12:59 PM
CNN needs to take it on the chin... Every network has clips on youtube that are embarrassing--but don't represent the network as a whole.
But this was a moment of honesty for cnn. They would rather keep their opinions a little more veiled.

Odysseus
04-20-2009, 01:43 PM
Technically it is their property and they can choose the videos they want to grant public access to and which they don't. They don't really have to state a reason because the copyright infringement rules can be applied on a individual basis. Under the law, I believe, it is up to them to raise the issue and they can either raise it collectively or ala carte.
Yes and no. This gets into fair use issues and copyright law. The reason for refusing to allow someone to use a video is that as the copyright holder, you are entitled to either compensation for its use, or because you are seeking to protect your ownership of the video, otherwise it can slip into public domain. Now, CNN allows people to post their videos on a regular basis, so there is no fear of lost ownership. Since CNN does not demand compensation for the other videos posted, it's disingenuous for them to demand that they get paid for this one, or that its posting violates their rights in a way that the other postings do not. Of course, Youtube will probably comply, since they don't want to get into a nasty court fight, and they are simpatico to CNN's ideological, if not legal, position, but it's still rampant hypocrisy.

CNN needs to take it on the chin... Every network has clips on youtube that are embarrassing--but don't represent the network as a whole.
How does this not represent CNN as a whole? Does it not reflect founder Ted Turner's contempt for conservatives? Does it not demonstrate an obvious and persistent bias which permeates most of their material? Does it not show one of their reporters embarassing herself in an unscripted moment? These are the staples of CNN coverage, from Peter Arnett allowing himself to give aid and comfort to Saddam's military on Iraqi TV to Eason Jordan slandering US troops from the stage at Davos, this is CNN.

FlaGator
04-20-2009, 01:48 PM
But as the copyright holder, don't they have the right to control the use of their property, allowing or disallowing viewing of whatever content they choose?

Odysseus
04-20-2009, 02:19 PM
But as the copyright holder, don't they have the right to control the use of their property, allowing or disallowing viewing of whatever content they choose?

Not if they've already given it away. If CNN has a contract with Youtube that gives permission to use their content, and it allows them to withdraw that permission for individual videos, then they can, but if they are allowing use of material without an agreement, then they have established a precedent of fair use and the material that they have previously permitted could lapse into public domain. Of course, CNN can sue Youtube and demand that all of their unauthorized content be removed, or use the threat of a suit to impel Tube to maintain the status quo by yanking the offending video in return for not suing, or they can enter into a formal contract with YouTube that grants permission but gives CNN the right to pull specific pieces of content at will. Any of these COAs would put YouTube into the position of being a CNN outlet, since CNN could then demand that YouTube not carry competitors' content in return for permission to carry CNN content. This could eliminate FOXNews, to cite one example, from YouTube. It would give CNN veto power over all of YouTube's other content, which would kill YouTube faster than a return of the Fairness Doctrine.

FlaGator
04-20-2009, 02:21 PM
Not if they've already given it away. If CNN has a contract with Youtube that gives permission to use their content, and it allows them to withdraw that permission for individual videos, then they can, but if they are allowing use of material without an agreement, then they have established a precedent of fair use and the material that they have previously permitted could lapse into public domain. Of course, CNN can sue Youtube and demand that all of their unauthorized content be removed, or use the threat of a suit to impel Tube to maintain the status quo by yanking the offending video in return for not suing, or they can enter into a formal contract with YouTube that grants permission but gives CNN the right to pull specific pieces of content at will. Any of these COAs would put YouTube into the position of being a CNN outlet, since CNN could then demand that YouTube not carry competitors' content in return for permission to carry CNN content. This could eliminate FOXNews, to cite one example, from YouTube. It would give CNN veto power over all of YouTube's other content, which would kill YouTube faster than a return of the Fairness Doctrine.

Thank you for the clarification.

PoliCon
04-20-2009, 03:03 PM
CNN needs to take it on the chin... Every network has clips on youtube that are embarrassing--but don't represent the network as a whole.

except those about fox of course. :rolleyes: The ones about fox are dead on balls accurate and gospel truth - the others are flukes and not representative. :rolleyes: Leftists make me wanna puke.

newshutr
04-20-2009, 05:07 PM
Not if they've already given it away. If CNN has a contract with Youtube that gives permission to use their content, and it allows them to withdraw that permission for individual videos, then they can, but if they are allowing use of material without an agreement, then they have established a precedent of fair use and the material that they have previously permitted could lapse into public domain. Of course, CNN can sue Youtube and demand that all of their unauthorized content be removed, or use the threat of a suit to impel Tube to maintain the status quo by yanking the offending video in return for not suing, or they can enter into a formal contract with YouTube that grants permission but gives CNN the right to pull specific pieces of content at will. Any of these COAs would put YouTube into the position of being a CNN outlet, since CNN could then demand that YouTube not carry competitors' content in return for permission to carry CNN content. This could eliminate FOXNews, to cite one example, from YouTube. It would give CNN veto power over all of YouTube's other content, which would kill YouTube faster than a return of the Fairness Doctrine.

My TV station carries CNN video. We're on their Firepath VOD system. We're in an agreement with CNN. They do NOT have the right to demand we not carry other network video.

CNN is providing the product. They cannot tell the carrier whom to broadcast. Hostess Bakery cannot tell the supermarket not to carry Tastycake bakery products. Hostess would soon find itself not being sold in stores if they did that practice.

hazlnut
04-20-2009, 07:02 PM
But this was a moment of honesty for cnn. They would rather keep their opinions a little more veiled.

How is one reporter representative of Time Warner? Why is it such a big deal that CNN did this? Because CNN is the closest thing we have to a centrist news network. Most CNN stories are framed around the 'dramatic angle' or implied conflict of the people or groups involved. (most tv news operates this way)

You can watch any hour and see two separate segments framed from two different points of view--swinging back and forth from center to right-of-center (Dobbs) and left-of-center.

Also, it's interesting how the network coming down on CNN seems to edit or leave out the first person she interviewed--with the Hitler poster...

IMO-- She was definitely busted coming to a field interview with an agenda--looking to frame the event as a Fox News /Right Wing event. Although, I have to wonder what she was doing is Chicago of all places if she really wanted some red meat for the dems.

FlaGator
04-20-2009, 07:13 PM
How is one reporter representative of Time Warner? Why is it such a big deal that CNN did this? Because CNN is the closest thing we have to a centrist news network. Most CNN stories are framed around the 'dramatic angle' or implied conflict of the people or groups involved. (most tv news operates this way)

You can watch any hour and see two separate segments framed from two different points of view--swinging back and forth from center to right-of-center (Dobbs) and left-of-center.

Also, it's interesting how the network coming down on CNN seems to edit or leave out the first person she interviewed--with the Hitler poster...

IMO-- She was definitely busted coming to a field interview with an agenda--looking to frame the event as a Fox News /Right Wing event. Although, I have to wonder what she was doing is Chicago of all places if she really wanted some red meat for the dems.

When someone works for a company they become an unofficial representative of that company whether they like or not. People look at her and her actions and many will assume that because she was not disciplined for her actions that CNN endorses that kind of behavior from it's employees. That his how one persons can be representative of a whole company.

Odysseus
04-20-2009, 07:30 PM
My TV station carries CNN video. We're on their Firepath VOD system. We're in an agreement with CNN. They do NOT have the right to demand we not carry other network video.

CNN is providing the product. They cannot tell the carrier whom to broadcast. Hostess Bakery cannot tell the supermarket not to carry Tastycake bakery products. Hostess would soon find itself not being sold in stores if they did that practice.

This is true, but... If, as a condition of carrying their products, Hostess were to stipulate in their contracts that stores not stock another brand, it would be illegal restraint of trade. The supermarket can always decide not to engage in a contract with Hostess under those circumstances, or report the infraction to the Commerce Dept., but this assumes a contract is in place or being negotiated. However, if there is no contract, and the store sells Hostess products illegally and Hostess threatens to sue, the store can, as a condition of the agreement, remove other products from the shelves in order to prevent the suit and make restitution. By posting CNN content without a contract between CNN and YouTube, YouTube has put itself in the position of having to prove that it acted legally and that it has a right to post content that belongs to the originator if it is posted by a third party. That's a difficult precedent to prove, although YouTube can argue that CNN's failure to protect its previous content places that in the public domain, but they would be enjoined from posting any new videos. If CNN were to offer not to sue in return for YouTube taking down the offending video, they would probably go along with it. If they made the removal of other providers' content a condition of their acquiesence, YouTube would have to choose whether to knuckle under or to take CNN to court. Neither side wants that lawsuit to go through, because the possible repercussions of a decision would impact either one catastrophically. CNN would lose ownership of a tremendous amount of content, and YouTube would be out of business.

Basically, this is the corporate version of Mutually Assured Destruction.

hazlnut
04-21-2009, 01:21 PM
When someone works for a company they become an unofficial representative of that company whether they like or not. People look at her and her actions and many will assume that because she was not disciplined for her actions that CNN endorses that kind of behavior from it's employees. That his how one persons can be representative of a whole company.

IMO, taking all the editorial opinions expressed openly or more subtly by many individual reporters and anchors on a variety of issues over the course of a set time period would be the only way to accurately discern the overall views of a media corporation.

The real bias or agenda, the only thing the CEO's and VP's are really interested in is selling ad-time. In pursuit of that goal, they go after a certain market share, i.e. ratings points which allow them to sell ad-time at a certain price.

It's interesting that in the wake of the November election and Obama taking office, that FOX and MSNBC's ratings have gone up while CNN seems to have plateaued.

Part of FOX's marking strategy is based on painting the other networks as less creditable or biased--naturally they will call attention to this CNN reporter's obviously biased outing. -- Just as MSNBC has been keying in FOX News graphics calling the tea-party events the FNC Tea Party's.

I am a FOX news viewer who will admit that FNC was not at those events to just to do "Fair and Balanced" reporting. They where definitely there in a sponsorship capacity. But that's okay IMO. They cater to their audience. Fox news has gone on record, admitting that their mid-day programming is straightforward reporting, and their morning and evening programming are news-based opinion shows. I happen to prefer O'Reilly and Greta over Hannity and Beck. That's just me.

There is a tradition in our country of newspapers being openly affiliated with one party or the other. Many towns had two papers each with their own slant. As a region developed and became predominately red or blue--one paper would lose ad revenue/readership and eventually go under.

To those who say the New York Times or Seattle Time are biased, well, who are they trying to sell ad space and newspapers to? How did the New York Times become known as the "paper of record"?--A long history of breaking big stories and selling a lot of newspapers in a large market. How do you compete with a left-leaning "paper of record"? A right-leaning newspaper with tabloidesque front page headlines and art (photos)--The New York Post.

It is what it is, folks. The real bias is ad sales and market share. Without those, they go under. If firing one CNN reporter would help in that capacity, she'd be gone.

Odysseus
04-21-2009, 02:39 PM
IMO, taking all the editorial opinions expressed openly or more subtly by many individual reporters and anchors on a variety of issues over the course of a set time period would be the only way to accurately discern the overall views of a media corporation.
When the then-head of programming for CNN announced that US troops were targeting journalists for assassination in Iraq, it's pretty obvious which side he was on. When their lead corespondent appeared on Iraqi state TV under Saddam and announced that we had already lost the war, it's pretty obvious what his leanings are. The pattern is there, it's obvious to anyone who cares to look, and it's destroyed CNN's credibility.

The real bias or agenda, the only thing the CEO's and VP's are really interested in is selling ad-time. In pursuit of that goal, they go after a certain market share, i.e. ratings points which allow them to sell ad-time at a certain price.
Except that this isn't true. Media outlets on the left have been losing money hand over fist, and the more money that they lose, the harder they cling to their editorial line. The NY Times' perpetual mode of enshrining leftwing talking points in hard news has alienated hundreds of thousands of subscribers over the years, and their ad revenues reflect this collapse. The NY Times' stock is a fraction of its former value, and Pinch Sulzberger continues to take the paper down the road to oblivion. The LA Times is on the verge of bankruptcy and the WA Post is hurting as well. Meanwhile, the only paper in NYC that's picking up circulation is the NY Post.


I am a FOX news viewer who will admit that FNC was not at those events to just to do "Fair and Balanced" reporting. They where definitely there in a sponsorship capacity. But that's okay IMO. They cater to their audience. Fox news has gone on record, admitting that their mid-day programming is straightforward reporting, and their morning and evening programming are news-based opinion shows. I happen to prefer O'Reilly and Greta over Hannity and Beck. That's just me.

There is a tradition in our country of newspapers being openly affiliated with one party or the other. Many towns had two papers each with their own slant. As a region developed and became predominately red or blue--one paper would lose ad revenue/readership and eventually go under. [/QUOTE]
I would have no problem with a newspaper that admitted its bias and continued to march. What I object to is that the MSM denies any bias even as it abandons any pretext of objectivity. When mainstream media outlets deliberately suppress news that reflects badly on the party that they identify with or that reflects well on the party that they oppose, when they slant hard news stories to reflect their biases and then deny that they are doing this, their credibility nosedives. The result is that if the media can't honestly assess its own leanings, how can we expect it to honestly assess the news?

To those who say the New York Times or Seattle Time are biased, well, who are they trying to sell ad space and newspapers to? How did the New York Times become known as the "paper of record"?--A long history of breaking big stories and selling a lot of newspapers in a large market. How do you compete with a left-leaning "paper of record"? A right-leaning newspaper with tabloidesque front page headlines and art (photos)--The New York Post.
The NY Times became known as the paper of record because under previous management, it had been a relatively honest broker and provided the most detailed news of any daily. I first became suspicious of the Times when I read its accounts of the events leading up to the Crown Heights Riots in NYC under the Dinkins administration. The reports in the Daily News and Post mentioned that the crowd at the accident had stolen the wallet of the driver of the car, a detail that the Times ommitted. I made it a point to compare the stories as events unfolded, and found that the Times routinely ommitted details that reflected poorly on the rioters. For several years after that, I made it a point to review multiple sources before coming to a conclusion about any issue, until eventually I realized that I no longer trusted the Times to report straight news. Since then, its credibility has been nuked by scandals, dishonest reporting and the deliberate dissemination of classified information during wartime. It's one thing to disagree with the OPED page, but when you can no longer trust the front page, it's time to move on, and apparently I'm not the only one.

It is what it is, folks. The real bias is ad sales and market share. Without those, they go under. If firing one CNN reporter would help in that capacity, she'd be gone.
Then why is CNN continuing to lose both ad revenues and market share? For that matter, why did they try to suppress the video of Roesgen's report instead of acknowledging the problem? Remember when Dan Rather presented obviously forged documents in a news story? CBS removed their anchorman and fired his producer, finally admitting what everyone already knew, which is that Rather was further to the left than the salad fork and that his news coverage was so tainted that he'd alienated most of his audience. Roesgen has done the same thing. CNN will probably fire her, not because they disagree with her, but because she is an embarassment.

Teetop
04-21-2009, 03:01 PM
But as the copyright holder, don't they have the right to control the use of their property, allowing or disallowing viewing of whatever content they choose?

Wrong on all accounts, the video in question was not property of CNN or anyone associated with CNN.

Read more here. (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/20/cnns-cover-up-and-fair-use-abuse/)

The video was shot by Andrew Marcus of Founding Bloggers and posted to YouTube.

hazlnut
04-21-2009, 04:27 PM
When the then-head of programming for CNN announced that US troops were targeting journalists for assassination in Iraq, it's pretty obvious which side he was on. When their lead corespondent appeared on Iraqi state TV under Saddam and announced that we had already lost the war, it's pretty obvious what his leanings are. The pattern is there, it's obvious to anyone who cares to look, and it's destroyed CNN's credibility.

Without links backing up your two examples it's difficult to respond except to say what already said: reviewing all the editorial opinions expressed openly or more subtly by many individual reporters and anchors on a variety of issues over the course of a set time period would be the only way to accurately discern any actual.

Unless you have a non-partisan, objective source that has endevored to do this type of comprehensive analysis with a fair system for scoring and ranking each story as to bias, then we only our own anecdotal evidence as a basis for our opinions.

I have been looking at this issue of bias and agenda for a number of years and don't see the bias at CNN that you do.


Then why is CNN continuing to lose both ad revenues and market share? For that matter, why did they try to suppress the video of Roesgen's report instead of acknowledging the problem? Remember when Dan Rather presented obviously forged documents in a news story? CBS removed their anchorman and fired his producer, finally admitting what everyone already knew, which is that Rather was further to the left than the salad fork and that his news coverage was so tainted that he'd alienated most of his audience. Roesgen has done the same thing. CNN will probably fire her, not because they disagree with her, but because she is an embarassment.

CNN is currently neither losing nor gaining market share. As far as comparing Dan Rather and Roesgen, I don't see that clear cut an analogy as you do--

Odysseus
04-21-2009, 05:56 PM
Without links backing up your two examples it's difficult to respond except to say what already said: reviewing all the editorial opinions expressed openly or more subtly by many individual reporters and anchors on a variety of issues over the course of a set time period would be the only way to accurately discern any actual.
Eason Jordan's statements about the targeted assassinations is a matter of public record and can easily be googled. The exposure of his statements cost him his job. The Peter Arnett comments made on Iraqi TV are also a matter of public record. These are relatively easy quotes to find, but since you've never heard of them, there are a few links:
Try Arnett for treason, senator says (http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/04/02/loc_rail.bunning02.html)
CNN's Jordan Resigns Over Iraq Remarks
News Chief Apologized For Comment on Troops (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17462-2005Feb11.html)
Now, some people might take offense at CNN running jihadi propaganda, and cite that as an anti-American bias, rather than a liberal one, but it's hard to imagine a conservative outlet trafficking in Islamist propaganda and showing US personnel being killed. You decide:
Video shows snipers' chilling work in Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/19/iraq.sniper.video/index.html)
Or maybe Jack Cafferty's accusation (http://www.newsbusters.org/node/5323)that the Bush administration was planning a dictatorship...
No? How about when he called the Secretary of Defense "an obnoxious jerk and a war criminal" (http://newsbusters.org/node/8879) the day before the 2006 midterm election?
Still not buying it? How about when CNN ran a speech with VP Cheney and put a big black "X" over his face (http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t43182.html)? http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/my/yplus/csp_pcm_us_my_dial/cms.my.yahoo.com/uploads/nov2005Or the CNN phone operator who called it a "freedom of speech" issue and told the caller to tell Cheney to "stop lying" and "bring our Soldiers home?" (http://www.dailypundit.com/graphics/cnncall.wav)
Here's Wikipedia's description of CNN during the Clinton years, when it was known as the Clinton News Network:

Rick Kaplan served as president of CNN from 1997 to 2000. He is a personal friend, since 1977, of Bill Clinton, who was President of the United States during Kaplan's tenure. According to the Media Research Center, Kaplan's friendship, and political affinity, with Clinton affected the way the network covered the Monica Lewinsky scandal: "As the Lewinsky scandal broke, Kaplan leapt into action at CNN with two-hour specials attacking any and all Clinton critics. The programs included 'Media Madness,' which asked 'what the hell are you people doing' probing Bill Clinton’s sex life?; and 'Investigating the Investigator,' which described Ken Starr as 'suspect' over his 'religious and Republican roots.'"[22] Conservative commentator John Fund wrote that "During Mr. Kaplan's CNN tenure, there were no obvious examples of his coming to Mr. Clinton's aid," but that CNN's "executives create a perception problem when they hobnob with politicians."

Unless you have a non-partisan, objective source that has endevored to do this type of comprehensive analysis with a fair system for scoring and ranking each story as to bias, then we only our own anecdotal evidence as a basis for our opinions.
I have been looking at this issue of bias and agenda for a number of years and don't see the bias at CNN that you do.
How many of these incidents do you need to have your nose rubbed in before you acknowledge the reality in front of your face?

CNN is currently neither losing nor gaining market share. As far as comparing Dan Rather and Roesgen, I don't see that clear cut an analogy as you do--
Both are highly partisan "journalists" whose claim to objectivity was clearly and obviously belied by their grossly unprofessionall conduct in covering stories about their political adversaries. Get it now?

Odysseus
04-21-2009, 05:59 PM
And, here's a bit more on Rick Kaplan, courtesy of Wikipedia:


After Kaplan moved to CNN, U.S. News & World Report found that Kaplan had ordered CNN reporters to "limit the use of the word 'scandal'’ in reporting on Clinton's campaign fundraising." Critics claim this as an example of bias, given Kaplan's long time and close friendship with President Clinton.

In 1998, CNN President Kaplan oversaw production of the first documentary for the new show NewsStand. The documentary called "Tailwind," narrated by journalist Peter Arnett, alleged that during the Vietnam War the United States had used poison gas against women and children in Laos. This report was later discredited. Kaplan is also presumed responsible for the leave-taking of longtime CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, over various conflicts in editorial policy and personalities. After Kaplan's exit from the station in 2000, Dobbs returned to the fold, where he remains as of April 2009.

FlaGator
04-21-2009, 06:42 PM
Wrong on all accounts, the video in question was not property of CNN or anyone associated with CNN.

Read more here. (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/20/cnns-cover-up-and-fair-use-abuse/)

The video was shot by Andrew Marcus of Founding Bloggers and posted to YouTube.

There was nothing to be wrong about. I was inquiring about the general concept of copyright laws and not the video specifically.

hazlnut
04-21-2009, 08:32 PM
How many of these incidents do you need to have your nose rubbed in before you acknowledge the reality in front of your face?

Both are highly partisan "journalists" whose claim to objectivity was clearly and obviously belied by their grossly unprofessionall conduct in covering stories about their political adversaries. Get it now?

I don't know Odysseus, you seem to be firm in your convictions about CNN, and by the tone of your remark, I guess there's nothing more to discuss.

Us independents, right-of-center moderate conservatives will just have to go on considering multiple points of view before making up our minds. Shame on us for not blindly accepting FNC as only reliable source of news.

Meanwhile you should do the math and consider that the 25-30% of this country that makes up the GOP base can not win a national election on it's own. You need me. So, don't be a playa' hater...:(;)

newshutr
04-21-2009, 08:41 PM
I don't know Odysseus, you seem to be firm in your convictions about CNN, and by the tone of your remark, I guess there's nothing more to discuss.

Us independents, right-of-center moderate conservatives will just have to go on considering multiple points of view before making up our minds. Shame on us for not blindly accepting FNC as only reliable source of news.

Meanwhile you should do the math and consider that the 25-30% of this country that makes up the GOP base can not win a national election on it's own. You need me. So, don't be a playa' hater...:(;)

So, what are you...independent or a right of center moderate?

With they way you seem to believe what CNN hammers out, I'd say you're more left of center. But don't mind me, I only work in the business and have worked freelance for CNN, I wouldn't know what I've seen or experienced with them...

hazlnut
04-21-2009, 10:35 PM
So, what are you...independent or a right of center moderate?

With they way you seem to believe what CNN hammers out, I'd say you're more left of center. But don't mind me, I only work in the business and have worked freelance for CNN, I wouldn't know what I've seen or experienced with them...

And my working for Fox during the inception and early days of the cable news division makes my opinion on spin vs. objectivity irrelevant too.

Please read earlier posts before (if) we continue this, I can't retype everything I've said about the issue of 'bias' in the media.

If you really do work in the business, then I'd be interested to hear your take on some of things I've said--I am interested in an open and intelligent discussion on bias in media--but just like great horror flick, I continue to search... Prove me wrong, dazzle me with some insight into my insight... Start with anything we agree upon and work backwards...

PM me if you want

Odysseus
04-22-2009, 11:51 AM
I don't know Odysseus, you seem to be firm in your convictions about CNN, and by the tone of your remark, I guess there's nothing more to discuss.

Us independents, right-of-center moderate conservatives will just have to go on considering multiple points of view before making up our minds. Shame on us for not blindly accepting FNC as only reliable source of news.
You demanded links to prove my point, I provided them. Now you make a straw man argument rather than admit the truth. I never said that FNC was the only reliable source of news. Any news source can be reliable if you go in knowing their biases and limitations and you have enough information from other sources to confirm or deny what's there. My objection is not that CNN is biased, it's that they refuse to admit their bias, or even entertain the question, and that whenever the question is raised, they try to suppress the evidence, attack their accusers and deny, deny, deny. They demand proof, then ignore it. They issue retractions after the fact when their stories are debunked, but the retractions never get the same focus as the initial claims. They occasionally fire the worst offenders, when they're caught, and the incidents are so obvious and so undeniable that they have no other choice. Then, they cite their retractions and firings as "proof" of their even-handedness.

And you're right, I am firm in my convictions about CNN. I've had firsthand experience with CNN, that experience should give you an idea of why I consider them dishonest. During my first couple of months in Iraq, I caught a CNN report of a rocket attack on the Green Zone. It was nothing unusual, just a single rocket hitting randomly. We'd covered this during the SIGACT brief that day, and the battle damage assessment had been minimal, with no casualties. The CNN reporter was talking in front of a huge plume of thick black smoke and describing the attack, followed by his editorializing on how long America could continue to support this war under these circumstances. Although he never came out and stated that the smoke came from the rocket attack, it was certainly implied. I couldn't figure out what kind of damage would produce that much smoke, especially since the BDA hadn't shown very much. Then, one of the other officers suddenly said that he knew what it was. The reporter was standing in front of a junkyard in Baghdad, although you couldn't see it from the camera angle. The smoke was from a perpetual tire fire there. The officer had led convoys through that AO and knew the site. CNN had chosen it as a backdrop in order to create a false impression of damage. We saw a few more reports from that site during our tour, and it became a running joke as to how big the blast radius of a rocket had to be in order to set off the tires. Between that and CNN's perpetual slandering of my fellow Soldiers and me, I developed the opinion of them that I've expressed to you. Don't care for it? No problem, but if your presence at FNC for a few months gives you standing on how news is produced, my presence in the combat zone where the news was made should give me a bit more standing on the disconnect between what happened and what was reported.


Meanwhile you should do the math and consider that the 25-30% of this country that makes up the GOP base can not win a national election on it's own. You need me. So, don't be a playa' hater...:(;)
I don't need apologists for a dishonest and treasonous media, the Democrats do that well enough on their own and if you're a conservative, then I'm George S. Patton.

hazlnut
04-22-2009, 12:22 PM
You demanded links to prove my point, I provided them. Now you make a straw man argument rather than admit the truth. I never said that FNC was the only reliable source of news. Any news source can be reliable if you go in knowing their biases and limitations and you have enough information from other sources to confirm or deny what's there.

You provided links to two old stories wherein the person resigned. This proves nothing. Except that CNN like any news source has loose cannons and this somehow justifies your seeing bias where you want to see it--where it suits your point of view. Instead of stepping back and doing any true objective analysis of even a day's worth of stories you cling to the belief (your own bias) that comforts you.

My last response was mostly a polite way (as much as I could muster) of telling you that you and I have completely different ways of processing information and evaluating a source for bias or slant. You think a handful of links proves the bias/agenda of entire network? Or your own anecdotal experience with CNN? IMO, that's a sadly narrow minded view and limiting view.

Here's a way to disprove your belief regarding a left-leaning bias on CNN:

Why don't you get honest and watch for a day or a week and look for examples of the RIGHT-wing bias on CNN--examples of where the angle taken on a certain story favors a right-leaning position. No. Can't do that. It might confirm your worst belief, that things aren't as they seem.

You see, Odie, I understand... considering multiple points of view, listening to opinions contrary to your own, doing your own digging and searching for the facts on a particular issue... It's time consuming. Like critical thinking, it's very taxiing and exhausting to some, and therefore, they avoid it and just accept what's spoon fed to them. Read: Sheep. Very bitter sheep.

"I don't want to know about what I don't want to know." Ignorance is indeed bliss.

Again, reviewing all the editorial opinions expressed openly or more subtly by many individual reporters and anchors on a variety of issues over the course of a set time period would be the only way to accurately discern any actual and unless you have a non-partisan, objective source that has endeavored to do this type of comprehensive analysis with a fair system for scoring and ranking each story as to bias, then we only our own anecdotal evidence as a basis for our opinions.

I tried tried to have a logic and thoughtful discussion with you, really I did. Then you had to go and get all stupid on me:




How many of these incidents do you need to have your nose rubbed in before you acknowledge the reality in front of your face?


You really left me no choice. Good luck, and God Speed with the blissful thinking.

Molon Labe
04-22-2009, 12:27 PM
And my working for Fox during the inception and early days of the cable news division makes my opinion on spin vs. objectivity irrelevant too.

Please read earlier posts before (if) we continue this, I can't retype everything I've said about the issue of 'bias' in the media.

If you really do work in the business, then I'd be interested to hear your take on some of things I've said--I am interested in an open and intelligent discussion on bias in media--but just like great horror flick, I continue to search... Prove me wrong, dazzle me with some insight into my insight... Start with anything we agree upon and work backwards...

PM me if you want

Don't have any experience in the biz....but I have my experience with media bias. I believe there are few if any reputable outlets left in corporate media that don't have some agenda one way or another. And if they do slant left or right, I doubt it is a slant in favor of the average U.S. citizen's daily goals in life.
I'll trust the bloggers on this Vid who showed us the whole picture before I trust someone that cherry picks interviewees and then presents it as the truth.




I never said that FNC was the only reliable source of news.

No you didn't....but there are a whole lot of people here and in my circles that take it as the gospel, with little convincing otherwise that they are just being duped as much as liberals are with the left wing media.....and to the detriment of the Republican party and conservatism I might add.
I would trust neither Keith Olberman of MSNBC nor Carl Cameron of Fox if my life dependend on it. Each are both despicable propagandists.

newshutr
04-22-2009, 12:43 PM
And my working for Fox during the inception and early days of the cable news division makes my opinion on spin vs. objectivity irrelevant too.

Please read earlier posts before (if) we continue this, I can't retype everything I've said about the issue of 'bias' in the media.

If you really do work in the business, then I'd be interested to hear your take on some of things I've said--I am interested in an open and intelligent discussion on bias in media--but just like great horror flick, I continue to search... Prove me wrong, dazzle me with some insight into my insight... Start with anything we agree upon and work backwards...

PM me if you want

Oh, if you go to my blog, you'll see I do work in TV.

What you've said in recent posts is true but...

If a network wanted to seem as un-biased as possible and a credible news outlet, it would be more apt to release a reporter that injects their own political views into their reports. It's very difficult to do so when reporting but it is vital if you care enough about journalistic standards and want to be seen as a good reporter. CNN has made their bed with liberals. It's glaring.

I had a CNN producer tell me to "make the Conservatives in the crowd look bad. Find the ugliest, strangest people there." I was at a McCain rally....

I find people like this CNN reporter one of the ones that are worried more about their career and how fast they can make it behind an anchor desk than actually refining their technique and reporting skills. They'd much rather read than report.

CNN is definitely losing market share. Matt Drudge posts ratings for the most popular shows quite frequently. Popular shows sell the most ads. Less viewers usually brings about less ad revenue.

Odysseus
04-22-2009, 01:56 PM
You provided links to two old stories wherein the person resigned. This proves nothing. Except that CNN like any news source has loose cannons and this somehow justifies your seeing bias where you want to see it--where it suits your point of view. Instead of stepping back and doing any true objective analysis of even a day's worth of stories you cling to the belief (your own bias) that comforts you.
Except that the loose cannons in this case were the former lead foreign correspondent and the former head of programming. If the guys who decide what goes on the air are given to moonbat ravings, what does that tell you about the organization as a whole? Nothing, got it. Citing obvious examples is anecdotal. And, of course, your refusal to accept those examples is proof of your objectivity and my lack of it. Got it.


My last response was mostly a polite way (as much as I could muster) of telling you that you and I have completely different ways of processing information and evaluating a source for bias or slant. You think a handful of links proves the bias/agenda of entire network? Or your own anecdotal experience with CNN? IMO, that's a sadly narrow minded view and limiting view.
In other words, who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes? The fact that I personally observed CNN repeatedly faking a news event doesn't prove anything. The fact that their former CEO was a Clinton crony who enforced a deliberate policy of not taking him to task for scandals is simply one series of repeating, constant, isolated incidents. The fact that the people who decided what got put on the air lied about our conduct of the war in Iraq and were fired doesn't mean a thing. Again, got it.


Here's a way to disprove your belief regarding a left-leaning bias on CNN:
Why don't you get honest and watch for a day or a week and look for examples of the RIGHT-wing bias on CNN--examples of where the angle taken on a certain story favors a right-leaning position. No. Can't do that. It might confirm your worst belief, that things aren't as they seem.
We have CNN on daily in our DFAC. I watch it for the hour that I'm at lunch, just about daily. I see the constant fawning coverage of Obama. I see the biased coverage of congressional news. I see the difference in the way liberal and conservative positions are covered, but naturally, I'm not as impartial an observer as you are, oh great and wise media poobah. Thus, I must be wrong, because you say so.

You see, Odie, I understand... considering multiple points of view, listening to opinions contrary to your own, doing your own digging and searching for the facts on a particular issue... It's time consuming. Like critical thinking, it's very taxiing and exhausting to some, and therefore, they avoid it and just accept what's spoon fed to them. Read: Sheep. Very bitter sheep.

"I don't want to know about what I don't want to know." Ignorance is indeed bliss.
You must have been part of the media. I don't know any other profession that is as arrogant. I'm an army officer. most of the media is contrary to my point of view and I get a facefull of it every time I turn on a TV. My opinions are based on my constant search for facts, not opinions, but facts that I can base my opinions on. I've got commanders who have made life or death decisions on my interpretation of information, and yet, because I consider our media irresponsible, dishonest and arrogant, I'm a sheep. Got it, again.


Again, reviewing all the editorial opinions expressed openly or more subtly by many individual reporters and anchors on a variety of issues over the course of a set time period would be the only way to accurately discern any actual and unless you have a non-partisan, objective source that has endeavored to do this type of comprehensive analysis with a fair system for scoring and ranking each story as to bias, then we only our own anecdotal evidence as a basis for our opinions.

I tried tried to have a logic and thoughtful discussion with you, really I did. Then you had to go and get all stupid on me:

You really left me no choice. Good luck, and God Speed with the blissful thinking.
Translation: Ody, I can't disprove a single thing that you've said, so I'm going to insult you, repeat myself in bigger type, declare victory and run away.
Still got it.
Anyone else here convinced by this?

newshutr
04-28-2009, 05:09 PM
CNN is currently neither losing nor gaining market share.

Well, maybe they are....

FOX Beats CNN and MSNBC...COMBINED.. (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_115 179.asp)


How's this for cable news domination - Fox News beat CNN and MSNBC combined in every hour from 6amET to MidnightET in both Total Viewers and the A25-54 demo for April 2009.

Odysseus
04-28-2009, 05:22 PM
Well, maybe they are....

FOX Beats CNN and MSNBC...COMBINED.. (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_115 179.asp)

See, that's just the kind of anecdotal evidence that Hazelnut keeps saying that I present, and it's obviously not going to be good enough. Now, if you were to take those figures, do a detailed, objective analysis, cross-referenced with weather patterns and remove outlying statistical errors while standing on one foot and patting your head and rubbing your stomach, then... No, he'd still reject it. :D

Water Closet
04-28-2009, 05:35 PM
Well, maybe they are....

FOX Beats CNN and MSNBC...COMBINED.. (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_115 179.asp)

CNN is currently losing market share as the two ideologically extreme networks (Fox and MSNBC) gain share. While Fox is comfortably ahead of MSNBC, the latter used to be a distant third. Now they are surpassing CNN.

Odysseus
04-28-2009, 06:53 PM
CNN is currently losing market share as the two ideologically extreme networks (Fox and MSNBC) gain share. While Fox is comfortably ahead of MSNBC, the latter used to be a distant third. Now they are surpassing CNN.

Except for two things, you'd be right about that. First, you're assuming that people are abandoning CNN for Fox and MSNBC, but MSNBC's ratings aren't much higher than they were a year ago, with one exception, which is Kieth Olbermann's freak show (although O'Reilly beats him 3:1 in viewership). The other is that FOXnews' ratings are substantially higher than they were a year ago, sometimes by a factor of two or more, while CNN's are lower, but not so much lower as to account for Fox's and MSNBC's rise. In other words, the total number of viewers of cable news shows is up, but CNN is losing viewers, MSNBC is gaining slightly, but Fox is attracting new viewers hand over fist.


Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for April 27, 2009

P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,301,000 viewers
CNN – 641,000 viewers
MSNBC –426,000 viewers
CNBC – 213,000 viewers
HLN – 345,000 viewers

P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,603,000 viewers
CNN—963,000 viewers
MSNBC –905,000 viewers
CNBC – 141,000 viewers
HLN – 761,000 viewers

25-54 Total Day
FNC –353,000 viewers
CNN –222,000 viewers
MSNBC –137,000 viewers
CNBC –70,000 viewers
HLN- 145,000 viewers

25-54 Prime Time
FNC – 681,000 viewers
CNN –330,000 viewers
MSNBC –311,000 viewers
CNBC – 67,000 viewers
HLN – 276,000 viewers

35-64 Total Day
FNC –590,000 viewers
CNN –293,000 viewers
MSNBC –210,000 viewers
CNBC –110,000 viewers
HLN- 170,000 viewers

35-64 Prime Time
FNC –1,100,000 viewers
CNN – 456,000 viewers
MSNBC –478,000 viewers
CNBC –72,000 viewers
HLN –397,000 viewers

Morning programs (6:00AM-9:00AM) P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
FOX & Friends –986,000 viewers (335,000) (583,000)
American Morning- 477,000 viewers (169,000) (213,000)
Morning Joe-362,000 viewers (119,000) (196,000)
Squawk Box-177,000 viewers (57,000) (111,000)
Morning Express w/ Meade- 300,000 viewers (145,000) (162,000)

5PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Glenn Beck – 2,168,000 viewers (534,000) (892,000)
Situation Room—972,000 viewers (227,000) (379,000)
Hardball w/ Chris Matthews —639,000 viewers (174,000) (262,000)
Fast Money—285,000 viewers (125,000) (136,000)
Prime News—367,000 viewers (129,000) (167,000)

6PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Special Report w/Bret Baier – 1,970,000 viewers (469,000) (848,000)
Situation Room—780,000 viewers (231,000) (359,000)
Ed Show —581,000 viewers (170,000) (266,000)
Mad Money—225,000 viewers (86,000) (105,000)
Prime News—376,000 viewers (123,000) (152,000)

7PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Fox Report w/Shepard Smith– 1,813,000 viewers (423,000) (737,000)
Lou Dobbs –787,000 viewers (264,000) (358,000)
Hardball w/Chris Matthews—695,000 viewers (227,000) (327,000)
Kudlow Report —161,000 viewers (66,000) (91,000)
Issues– 572,000 viewers (243,000) (301,000)

8PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
O’Reilly Factor —3,257,000 viewers (829,000) (1,375,000)
Campbell Brown—675,000 viewers (264,000) (344,000)
Countdown w/Keith Olbermann —1,091,000 viewers (338,000) (617,000)
CNBC Reports – a scratch w/112,000 viewers (a scratch w/ 36,000) (a scratch w/ 50,000)
Nancy Grace –1,072,000 viewers (402,000) (582,000)

9 PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Hannity– 2,290,000 viewers (543,000) (908,000)
Larry King Live—1,155,000 viewers (334,000) (490,000)
Rachel Maddow Show —984,000 viewers (337,000) (497,000)
Ultimate Fighting—168,000 viewers (73,000) (75,000)
Lou Dobbs Tonight- 534,000 viewers (183,000) (250,000)

10 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
On the Record w/Greta—2,244,000 viewers (659,000) (998,000)
Anderson Cooper—1,057,000 viewers (393,000) (532,000)
Countdown w/Keith Olbermann —640,000 viewers (259,000) (318,000)
On the Money – 142,000 viewers, (92,000) (90,000)
Nancy Grace –724,000 viewers (258,000) (383,000)

11 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
O’Reilly Factor —1,614,000 viewers (543,000) (831,000)
Anderson Cooper—705,000 viewers (306,000) (385,000)
Rachel Maddow Show –439,000 viewers (159,000) (224,000)
Mad Money– 131,000 viewers (57,000) (102,000)
Showbiz Tonight– 367,000 viewers (165,000) (192,000)

P2+ = viewers over the age of 2

(25-54) = Adults 25-54 viewing

(35-64) = Adults 35-64 viewing

Prime Time = 8-11pm

LIVE+SD: The number that watched a program either while it was broadcast OR watched via DVR on the same day [through 3AM the next day] the program was broadcast. For more information see Numbers 101.

Scratch = when a show’s audience fails to meet minimum Nielsen reporting levels. For more information go here.

Hawkgirl
04-28-2009, 08:03 PM
Well, I enjoyed reading the exchange by Odysseus with hzlnut...but I have to say, Odysseus wins hands down with substance and style.

Hzlnut, take your head out of the sand and open your eyes....yes, the truth can be ugly....but denying it will not make it disappear. I know how you feel though...I wish I could bury my head in the sand for the next 4 years.

Water Closet
04-28-2009, 08:16 PM
Except for two things, you'd be right about that. First, you're assuming that people are abandoning CNN for Fox and MSNBC, but MSNBC's ratings aren't much higher than they were a year ago, with one exception, which is Kieth Olbermann's freak show (although O'Reilly beats him 3:1 in viewership). The other is that FOXnews' ratings are substantially higher than they were a year ago, sometimes by a factor of two or more, while CNN's are lower, but not so much lower as to account for Fox's and MSNBC's rise. In other words, the total number of viewers of cable news shows is up, but CNN is losing viewers, MSNBC is gaining slightly, but Fox is attracting new viewers hand over fist.

Odysseus, I don't have the time or the inclination to look up the numbers. However, in my recollection, CNN prime time shows have traditionally been in the #2 position (King, Cooper). However, more recently, Olberman and Maddow have taken over those slots.

One must also recognize that CNN's "prime time lineup" is essentially different than that of Fox and MSNBC in that King is not overtly political.