Thread: Scrubbed! CNN yanking tea party 'embarrassment'

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39
  1. #11  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,172
    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?

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    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.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    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.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    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. The ones about fox are dead on balls accurate and gospel truth - the others are flukes and not representative. Leftists make me wanna puke.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member newshutr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    639
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    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.
    Yes..this camera is heavy.
    No...you can't be on TV.
    Look kid, go bother the reporter...I'm busy!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,172
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    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.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by newshutr View Post
    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.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View 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?
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View 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.
    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.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •