Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39
  1. #21  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    no-man's land in Texas
    Posts
    2,168
    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?
    Wrong on all accounts, the video in question was not property of CNN or anyone associated with CNN.

    Read more here.

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

  2. #22  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    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--
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    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
    CNN's Jordan Resigns Over Iraq Remarks
    News Chief Apologized For Comment on Troops

    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
    Or maybe Jack Cafferty's accusation 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" 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? Or 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?"
    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."
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    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
    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  
     

  4. #24  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    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.
    --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  
     

  5. #25  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Teetop View Post
    Wrong on all accounts, the video in question was not property of CNN or anyone associated with CNN.

    Read more here.

    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.

    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  
     

  6. #26  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post

    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...:(;)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member newshutr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    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...
    Yes..this camera is heavy.
    No...you can't be on TV.
    Look kid, go bother the reporter...I'm busy!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by newshutr View Post
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    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.
    --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  
     

  10. #30  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post

    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.
    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
  •