| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > TV News Corner > Topic: CNN: Corrupt News Network |
Topic: CNN: Corrupt News Network
| Author | Message |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/2/2007 9:51:10 PM | show profile THE United States is at war in the Middle East and Central Asia, the economy is writhing like a snake with a broken back, oil prices are relentlessly climbing toward $100 a barrel and an increasing number of Americans just can't afford to be sick with anything that won't be treated with aspirin and bed rest. So, when CNN brought the Republican presidential candidates together this week for what is loosely termed a "debate," what did the country get but a discussion of immigration, Biblical inerrancy and the propriety of flying the Confederate flag? In fact, this most recent debacle masquerading as a presidential debate raises serious questions about whether CNN is ethically or professionally suitable to play the political role the Democratic and Republican parties recently have conceded it. Selecting a president is, more than ever, a life and death business, and a news organization that consciously injects itself into the process, as CNN did by hosting Wednesday's debate, incurs a special responsibility to conduct itself in a dispassionate and, most of all, disinterested fashion. When one considers CNN's performance, however, the adjectives that leap to mind are corrupt and incompetent. Corruption is a strong word. But consider these facts: The gimmick behind Wednesday's debate was that the questions would be selected from those that ordinary Americans submitted to the video sharing Internet website YouTube, which is owned by Google. According to CNN, its staff culled through 5,000 submissions to select the handful that were put to the candidates. That process essentially puts the lie to the vox populi aura the association with YouTube was meant to create. When producers exercise that level of selectivity, the questions -- whoever initially formulated and recorded them -- actually are theirs. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-rutten1dec01,0,4122002.column?coll=la-home-center |
| newfrickinshow | Posted – 12/2/2007 11:34:56 PM | show profile I'll give CNN a little credit, because they did ask questions that no one had bothered to ask, and many of them were questions that were most important to the GOP base. Many of the reasons a lot of these questions hadn't been asked before of couse, is because many people don't care and haven't even considered it anyways. The kid with the confederate flag probably plans on a write-in vote for David Duke anyways. The Bible question speaks to the religious base, and interperating it literally is essentially to many on that side. Of course many of these people also support Guantanamo Bay, thus they support the torture of Jesus Christ, but I digress. The only thing good about that debate was Huckabee made a really strong showing. I'd rather him win the GOP nomination than most of the other candidates. |
| newfrickinshow | Posted – 12/3/2007 12:08:46 AM | show profile Next question if they would have had more time: Chris Crocker asking if the candidates thought the paparazzi and American population should "Leave Britney Alone!" |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/3/2007 8:25:52 AM | show profile "Of course many of these people also support Guantanamo Bay, thus they support the torture of Jesus Christ."--news Using your logic that means--- Since you don't support the death penalty,than you support murders. Since you don't support no knock warrants , than you support drug dealers. |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/3/2007 8:28:13 AM | show profile CNN deserves a little credit They did a good job in planting Democrat activists thoughout the debates. Farmers across America would be jealous!!! |
| newfrickinshow | Posted – 12/3/2007 9:54:16 AM | show profile My torturing Jesus logic. Most of these Christians believe we are all the children of God. Meaning at some level, Christians and non-Christians are at some level brothers and sisters whether we choose to believe it ourselves or not. They also believe in a hardline, literal interpretation of The Bible. Including Mathew 25:40. "'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me. "Literal interpretation; if you waterboard Ahmal or use sleep derpivation on Muhammed, you use them both on Jesus as well. Supporting the use on them, is supporting it on Jesus as well. I don't see your logic to the others. Seems like you're trying to say if A=B and C=D then A=F, but I'll entertain them none-the-less. The majority of studies indicate that the death penalty doesn't deter murder. I've asked and heard psychologists speak on the issue. The main 3 reasons murders are committed: compulsion, passion, and profit. Compulsion, you think you have to and thoughts of consequences won't even matter to you. Oh, and if you can get word to Duncan Hunter, let him know that there WAS a death penalty when Charles Manson killed all those people. He was sentenced to death. We know it wouldn't have deterred him from killing all those people because it didn't deter him from killing all those people. Of course I can understand you getting that wrong, because it's not like you're a congressman from California or anything. Oh, wait... Passion, you aren't thinking rationally and thoughts of consequences won't even occur to you. People willing to kill for profit are generally arrogant enought that they believe they won't be caught and ignore any thoughts of consequences. On top of that, the death penalty is unchristian. Now, I'm pretty sure you're thinking 'eye for an eye' right? I counter with Romans 12:19. "Vengeance Is Mine, I Will Repay Sayeth The Lord" Literal interpretation, it is an eye for an eye, but God reserves the right to take said eye. Drug dealers, I definitely support pot dealers. I don't do weed, never have in my life, but I think it should be legal. And I'm not talking just for medicinal purposes. Putting aside the hypocracy of legalizing far more toxic and lethal crap like cigarettes, alchohol, and aspirin. I've known a lot of good, hard-working people in the lower and middle classes who like to puff one up every once in a while when life gets too stressful. I don't because I like to be in full charge of all my mental faculties at all times. It's why I don't drink either. I had one glass of wine last year at New Years, and only because someone else poured it for me and it was a toast and it would've been rude for me to not drink. Oh, and there was that sip of beer I had at the strip club in Tulsa, tasted like crap. Only alchohol I've ever had unless you count NyQuil. As far as other narcotics go, I'm honestly somewhat unsure how I feel to be honest. I definitely recognize the lethality and social problems they present, but the libertarianism in me says that what anyone wants to do to their own bodies is their own business. Sometimes I wonder if legalization/regulation might be better. |
| chucho | Posted – 12/3/2007 10:09:31 AM | show profile I agreew ith Olby. CNN blows. I just disagree on whether FNS is worse or not. (Where OLby and I disagree is that Olby has his chips behind FNS and I don't have my chips behind any teevee cable news network. So who would be more objective in this debate?) I would also like to point out that CNN International is way better than CNN for the American idiots. (Just like how Newsweek puts an "intellectual's" cover on it's International edition and for its US edition it puts stupid stuff and Jesus stuff on its cover -- the US media doesn't have much respect for the American audience, for good reason, because people in Ameirca prefer to be spoon fed opinista talking points. It's funny how there's so much less opinion-driven drivel on the international editions of these networks. But the funny thing here is that CNN stacked the Republican debate with immigration issues because Lou Dobbs has a bug up his ass about this topic. So they basically controlled the debate, which is a travesty of the democratic process. Like I said before: The FCC should take airtime from the networks and reserve that time for weekly presidential candidate debates; The FCC should bar all media form playing a moderator's role -- give it back to the League of Women Voters; Congress should outlaw all third-party political advertising and fine the shit out of anyone who disseminates lies, or does push polling or other (Republican invented, Democrat adopted) sneaky dirty tricks. Campaign spending limits, too, of course. And no independent campaign contributions greater than $2,000 per individual. Oh and no corporate entities can contribute at all. No $55,000 from an energy company to Jim Inhofe's campaign coffer, etc. |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/3/2007 10:23:38 AM | show profile Charles Manson didn't kill anyone.His followers did.Kinda like a Al Sharpton follower killed the "white interloper". Why isn't Al Sharpton is jail?? Because he's a liberal?? Charles Mason did have liberal views to. The death penalty is a punishment, not a deterrence .I have never see the death penalty used has anything less. I don't know of anyone who follows the Bible to the letter.I don't know of anyone who votes based on what the Bible teaches. The media is biased.Polls can be biased.Just because you see a few people that follow the Bible to the letter on tv doesn't mean the majority of Republicans or Democrats do the same in this Christian Nation. Enough with the stereotypes !!!! |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/3/2007 10:30:24 AM | show profile CNN shouldn't try to edit its own history By The Daily Illini Editorial Board Wednesday's YouTube/CNN presidential debate, the Republican candidates were posed a variety of questions about their positions on the economy, gun control, immigration and the war in Iraq. But one question, particularly relevant to voters in a time of war - both military and cultural - no longer appears on rebroadcasts of the event. Ret. Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr rose from the audience and asked the candidates about their views on the controversial "Don't ask, don't tell" policy that is approaching its 15th anniversary. After lamenting that none of them answered his question even after pressing from moderator Anderson Cooper, Kerr sat down and the debate proceeded. Before going off the air, Cooper told the audience that CNN had been subsequently alerted that Kerr served as a member of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Americans for a steering committee of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and that had the network realized this, it would have handled the situation differently. While the network apologized, it went too far in pretending that the incident didn't happen. Even though CNN erred in allowing a question from another campaign to get in without disclosing it, the question itself was topical and incredibly relevant to anyone who is running to become the next commander in chief. Instead of acknowledging the mistake in future reruns, CNN has attempted to edit history by completely removing the question and the candidates' responses. By doing so, it did a disservice to its viewers. It would not have been unreasonable to insert a graphic during Kerr's question revealing his association with the Clinton campaign. Even though Kerr did not make an effort to reveal his affiliation during the event, the candidates' responses were still valid. By removing them, potential voters were deprived of an opportunity to get more information about their positions. Acknowledging that something went wrong in an Internet-driven debate that included a talking snowman and gunfire would not have damaged CNN's public image as much as this does. If a candidate had committed a mistake on the level of CNN's, say using incorrect statistics or flip-flopping, the network would run the clip perpetually for however long it was newsworthy. The debate drew a record 4.6 million viewers. With less than a year to go before next November, voter interest only looks to increase. CNN shouldn't damage its reputation and ability to cover all the candidates by appearing to be less than fully committed to letting viewers see the good, the bad and the ugly about the election. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/3/2007 10:37:04 AM | show profile Every time I turn to FOX I feel dirty. |
| newfrickinshow | Posted – 12/3/2007 10:45:58 AM | show profile Stereotypes, I've fucking seen it! Charles Manson had liberal and conservative views, whatever was the most convenient at the time. Have you listened to the politicans, they almost all claim the deterrent effect. That the death penalty ultimately saves lives. I refer you to my Duncan Hunter comment above, I said it because he tried to claim the death penalty could have had a deterrent effect on Charles Manson. Proving to me that Duncan Hunter's a freaking idiot. My non-religious objection to the death penalty involves the permanency of it. What if the executed person is vindicated with future evidence. Then everyone in the state who paid taxes paid to have that person executed. Making everyone party to the execution of an innocent person, making them and accessory to murder themselves. My question for you, if a person is convicted of murder, would you be willing to pull the switch? And if so, and that person is later proven to be innocent, would you be willing to sit in the chair yourself. You killed an innocent person. An alive person found innocent later can at least be let out of prison. And I will also refer you to the Christian comment, about God reserving the rights to revenge if that is what works for you. I'm an aetheist who acknowldges the possibility of a divine presence. I also think religion, of all types, can be one of the most dangerous weapon in the world. The death penalty is murder, so you're suggesting we answer murder with murder. We do what they did, in order to prove we as a society are better than them? I simply don't understand that reasoning. |
| chucho | Posted – 12/3/2007 1:04:02 PM | show profile The death penalty is not just a deterrent or a punishment, it's also revenge, vengeance, gross, primitive, backward Old Testament patriarchal eye-for-an-eye bullshit. It's also highly advocated in Islamic law. I find a lot of similarities between conservatives (especially Christian ones) and Islamists, actually. They should form a coalition to take over the world: they could call themselves the International Coalition of the People of the Book. (The Jews are the only Abrhamoids that have moved past this shit, which I find hilariously ironic. Meanwhile the Muslims and Christians continue with their self-righteous crusade to convert everyone to their world view, which includes the "satisfaction" of watching the state murder murderers.) The poster who said the death penalty is irreversible is correct. I would also like to point out that there is no perfect justice system. Ergo applying an absolute punishment within an imperfect system is in itself a travesty of justice. But I guess that's why I'm an evil liberal (or progressive, if you consider the word "liberal" has having been tainted by Karl Rove's spooge). |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/19/2007 12:31:28 PM | show profile Abortion is murder .Thats another thing liberals and nazis have in common.Killing of innocents How can you be against the DP , but be pro- abortion?? |
| stvj57 | Posted – 12/21/2007 10:46:49 PM | show profile olby, a person can be pro-choice and not be pro-abortion. being pro-choice means being in favor of letting someone have a choice, even if their choice for themselves might not be what your choice would be for you. i may not choose to smoke but i would not try to tell you that you can't. i may not choose to drink but i am not going to tell you that you can't. i may not choose to be a part of deciding to abort the birth of a child, but i am not going to tell you that you can't. there are a lot of people claiming we are loosing a lot of our rights. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/21/2007 10:51:52 PM | show profile stv - your opinon on abortion will not play well with these board trolls. You've got an independent streak that will bring you down sooner than later. |
| stvj57 | Posted – 12/21/2007 11:58:53 PM | show profile crimedog, you can call it independent but i just try to be as fair as i can be. it may not be the most popular way to be among those who preach only one thing, but popular was never my big goal anyway. i would be a walking contradiction to either major political party. by the way, nice to chat with you without all the name calling. don't worry, i do not for one minute believe you are reformed, just possibly in remission. lol. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/22/2007 12:50:18 AM | show profile stv - I'm not a reformist just independent. The board has been a battle ground for nearly a year a place to clean some right wing skull. It pretty much reflects the nastiness of Bush's term. I don't know about you but I'm not impressed with any candidate beyond Chris Dodd. The best the repubs have is Mike Huckabee - a guy I think is trying to be honest. McCain keeps using the POW thing as a way to win points and it reads poorly about him - Guliani - dead meat - Thompson - a lazy joke - Romney - just plain dishonest. Demos - Clinton should just go away - Edwards - slick as Elmer Gantry - Obama - not ready for prime time - Richardson - decent guy - Biden - trys to hard - Dodd - the best man for the job! |
| Latin1 | Posted – 12/22/2007 1:42:57 AM | show profile crimeb*tch wrote; "I'm not a reformist just independent" Oh is 'independents' what they are calling the old Soviet "useful idiots" these days? Chris Dodd has about as much chance of getting the Dumocrap presidential nomination as Dennis "tin-foil hat" Kucinich. lol...good luck with that, ok crimepup. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/22/2007 9:21:43 AM | show profile Frank - don't you make yourself throw up at times. How do you get the gall to pretend to be two people and answer your own posts. Second key word catching you pretending to be Latin1 - crimepup. You have used crimepup and Old Hippy numerous times. Sorry jerk - you aren't the brighest boy in the trailor park and easily outed! |
| Latin1 | Posted – 12/22/2007 10:06:21 AM | show profile uh...the irrational paranoia of the crazy lunatic left. They see conspiracies where there are none...lol |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/22/2007 10:08:31 AM | show profile come on coward boy Frankie - crimepup - old hippy - Latin1 - good try - how about truthout too! |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/22/2007 2:36:23 PM | show profile Frankie - why do you waste so much time and effort stalking others and pretending to be Latino. That was was a dead giveaway! |
| stvj57 | Posted – 12/22/2007 4:28:26 PM | show profile FrankLobo Posted ? 12/22/2007 1:46:04 AM | show profile Words Matter... stv- I understand that one may not be "pro-abortion", however the problem with calling it a "choice" is that the term is disingenuous. While I fear that abortion will always be a necessary evil, to call it "pro-choice" means what? Whats the choice? The choice is to kill your baby. And thats fine- but call it what it is... "PRO-ABORTION". to frank. frank, again i take the time to explain. I am in favor of giving people freedom of choice in most areas. if you are not, well that is fine. that would be YOUR choice. so if you feel you should be in charge of everyones choice i say fine, because i chose to give you that choice. your choice should you be granted the freedom to have it would be to deny the same freedom of choice to everyone else. then i would say if you choose to be a hypocrite, then ok. but would that make me pro-hypocrite? just because i give someone a choice to decide something does not mean i have to agree with or respect that choice. pro-choice means just that. giving choice and not forcing what may be my choice. if i were pro-abortion i would be for not allowing anyone to give birth. i would be for abortion only. no choice just like pro-life is for not allowing anyone to abort. no choice. we used to be tolerant people in this country, with people of different beliefs and opinions able to co-exist. we are fast becoming a country intolerant and unable to accept any opinion or belief other than that of each of ourselves. and even if we are not sure what to believe we tend to push conformicy as a default. now isn't pro-life mostly coming from the religious beliefs of those in our country? and isn't there a big deal about separation of church and state? which by the way has gotten way out of hand and is rediculous but i will use it anyway. well if there is a separation of church and state, why would the state be making law forcing the religious beliefs of some of us onto all of us? but back to your comment: to call it "pro-choice" means what? Whats the choice? The choice is to kill your baby. you only supplied one answer, one solution. that is not pro-choice. no, pro-choice choice is to give YOU the choice to kill or not kill your baby. what you do with that choice is up to you. i really don't care. if you say you want to jump off a bridge and i say do what you want. i am giving a choice without influance. if i say don't do that i am trying to influance your choice. if i drag you away or chain you or otherwise impair you from jumping i am giving you no choice. but if you jump after i say , do what you want, that doesn't make me pro-jump. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/22/2007 5:00:49 PM | show profile Men should butt out! Let the woman decide. It's their bodies. We can express our views but not impose. |
| Latin1 | Posted – 12/22/2007 8:25:52 PM | show profile crimepup wrote: "Frankie - why do you waste so much time and effort stalking others and pretending to be Latino. That was was a dead giveaway!" lol...oh, I don't have to PRETEND to be Latino, I am Latino. Here is some news for you crimepup. Most Latinos are Catholic and most Latinos are not behind abortion. Liberals BELIEVE that most Latinos are socialists like themselves, but in reality we are very conservative on social matters. Many Latinos do not believe in Gay marriage also. So it is not just your "trailer trash" as you call it. Oh, and here is something you might not know since you sound like your haven't been around lately...many of those "trailer trash" persons vote for Democrats because they are poor. So when people throw this "trailer trash" out there they are pretty stupid since most "trailer trash" vote for Democrats. I have known many poor white "trailer trash", who live in trailers, and guess what, the majority vote Democratic. |
