Wow CNN is a joke

Chance174 · 06-11-2008, 03:25 AM

Originally Posted by sgallan

That makes you a partisan. Your sh!t smells good and the rest of them stinks. You are a partisan. The otherside is evil. You are good. This comes out in a big way during election cycles and especially during Presidential election cycles. But you are absolutely sure - within your partisan myopia - that I am full of crap, and that your side is the most fair.

FWIW, they are all partisan. The difference between you and me is I realize that all of their sh!t stinks. You only think the side you disagree with sh!t stinks. You side may fart from time to time but their actual sh!t smells like roses.

lol....settle down there fella. I think you are missing the point. Yes I said they were the "most" balanced. Did I say they were balanced? No I said they lean right.

It is kind of like saying the Pirates and the Royals are both bad but the Royals suck worse. I never said fox news was good I said I believe that CNN reporting is worse and I even mentioned a shitty headline they had about Obama that I thought was terrible.

But i guess it is easier to bring the debate to "us versus them".

sgallan · 06-11-2008, 10:02 AM

It's pretty much "us versus them" anymore. Not only on tv, but in general society as a whole. Now I rather like "Morning Joe" on Msnbc. It is the closest thing I have found to being balanced.

matclone · 06-11-2008, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Chance174

My personal opinion is that it is the most balanced out of the major networks and media outlets. That being said does it lean right, yes. Is it as bad as CNN or MSNBC, no.

I usually read Fox, CNN, Drudge and a variety of other left and right leaning sources about an issue and then make up my own mind.

The fact you watch Fox, read Drudge, and listen to talk radio clearly shows
partisan tendencies. Commercial talk radio in particular is all about being partisan. There is no balance. There is no more than a single point of view. You might as well be listening to commercials for pleasure. All these media sources are invested in telling you what you want to hear--you having a demographic profile. They are also highly invested in an "us v. them" framework in viewing the world.

Chance174 · 06-11-2008, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by matclone

The fact you watch Fox, read Drudge, and listen to talk radio clearly shows
partisan tendencies. Commercial talk radio in particular is all about being partisan. There is no balance. There is no more than a single point of view. You might as well be listening to commercials for pleasure. All these media sources are invested in telling you what you want to hear--you having a demographic profile. They are also highly invested in an "us v. them" framework in viewing the world.

I never said I didn't lean right. I think that is obvious. I also stated besides talk radio and Fox I also read left leaning sources in order to get both points of view. I did say that right?

You are right Talk radio isn't balanced, neither is CNN, Fox, or other websites. Some are worse than others.

The whole point of this thread was to point out the shitty reporting that I saw and to discuss it.

matclone · 06-11-2008, 12:36 PM

There's nothing wrong with leaning right, but your partisan media sources are a poor argument for it.

For example, you muddy the distinction b/t talk radio and the other sources by mentioning it in the same breath as Fox and CNN--as if they are more or less of the same credibility on a left to right continum (what they want you to think). Most commercial talk radio is unadulterated propaganda.

I agree CNN (and Fox for that matter) is a joke.

therick · 06-11-2008, 01:09 PM

In an attempt to make a response similar to what Chance was looking for:

What disturbs me most about the reporting in this election is the almost complete lack of focus on the issues. Instead we've been told about religious preachers who've said this and that, none of whom are actually any of the candidates actual current pastors and none of whom are actually running for any office. We're shown every little time that a candidate uses a wrong word ex. beer. I could go on and on, but the fact is that the "news" networks and papers are failing all of us. If the primary debates were any indication, we'll learn next to nothing about the candidate's actual plans on the issues like: The economy, the environment, Iraq, immigration, the deficit and national debt, etc. Not because the candidates don't have plans or a position, but because the moderators of said debates aren't smart enough to craft questions to make them tell us the details of their plans.

No one has pressed Sen. Obama about the cap and trade system he's touting. In our current economy does anyone believe that companies who are forced to buy carbon credits won't just pass that expense right on to the consumer? Why, when the U.S. has one of the lowest savings rates in the developed world, is he in favor of removing the capital gains and dividends taxes? Don't those tax breaks encourage people to save and to invest in their own retirements and futures?

No one has asked Sen. McCain why he has only recently come out claiming to be pro-environment. But, his voting record for the last 10 years says otherwise. Also, why was he absent when votes were held twice in the last year on bills that would have supported what he "claims" to support in the environment? He tried to claim that he wasn't able to make it, but two others who were on the same plane with him were able to cast a vote. Is that the same as "being all talk with no action" which he claims is the nature of Obama?

I'm still looking for a reporter, or interviewer to actually ask the tough questions of the candidates. And not just a soft question that allows them to immediately roll into campaign speak. Make them focus on specific portions of their plans. Make them defend their position and convince me, that even with the drawbacks of any plan, that it's feasible and will be better for the nation.

Chance174 · 06-11-2008, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by therick

In an attempt to make a response similar to what Chance was looking for:

What disturbs me most about the reporting in this election is the almost complete lack of focus on the issues. Instead we've been told about religious preachers who've said this and that, none of whom are actually any of the candidates actual current pastors and none of whom are actually running for any office. We're shown every little time that a candidate uses a wrong word ex. beer. I could go on and on, but the fact is that the "news" networks and papers are failing all of us. If the primary debates were any indication, we'll learn next to nothing about the candidate's actual plans on the issues like: The economy, the environment, Iraq, immigration, the deficit and national debt, etc. Not because the candidates don't have plans or a position, but because the moderators of said debates aren't smart enough to craft questions to make them tell us the details of their plans.

No one has pressed Sen. Obama about the cap and trade system he's touting. In our current economy does anyone believe that companies who are forced to buy carbon credits won't just pass that expense right on to the consumer? Why, when the U.S. has one of the lowest savings rates in the developed world, is he in favor of removing the capital gains and dividends taxes? Don't those tax breaks encourage people to save and to invest in their own retirements and futures?

No one has asked Sen. McCain why he has only recently come out claiming to be pro-environment. But, his voting record for the last 10 years says otherwise. Also, why was he absent when votes were held twice in the last year on bills that would have supported what he "claims" to support in the environment? He tried to claim that he wasn't able to make it, but two others who were on the same plane with him were able to cast a vote. Is that the same as "being all talk with no action" which he claims is the nature of Obama?

I'm still looking for a reporter, or interviewer to actually ask the tough questions of the candidates. And not just a soft question that allows them to immediately roll into campaign speak. Make them focus on specific portions of their plans. Make them defend their position and convince me, that even with the drawbacks of any plan, that it's feasible and will be better for the nation.

Man that was a great post. You hit the nail right on the head!!!

FloggingSully · 06-11-2008, 01:27 PM

"No one has pressed Sen. Obama about the cap and trade system he's touting"
-Isn't McCain touting cap and trade? The original cap and trade bill was co-authored by McCain.

"In our current economy does anyone believe that companies who are forced to buy carbon credits won't just pass that expense right on to the consumer?"
-They'll pass some of the expense, but not all of it. They'd only be able to pass along all of the expense if the good had perfectly inelastic demand (which only exists in theory).
-The companies that are able to reduce their carbon emmissions won't have to pass these expenses on to their customers so they'll be able to sell their goods for cheaper, providing lots of incentive for reducing emmissions.

Sorry for jumping off topic.

therick · 06-11-2008, 01:34 PM

Thanks!

I get exactly what you're trying to get at. It's all tabloid journalism with some of it trying to claim it's actually serious journalism.

Political coverage is becoming more and more like something you'd find on E! News.

therick · 06-11-2008, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

"No one has pressed Sen. Obama about the cap and trade system he's touting"
-Isn't McCain touting cap and trade? The original cap and trade bill was co-authored by McCain.

"In our current economy does anyone believe that companies who are forced to buy carbon credits won't just pass that expense right on to the consumer?"
-They'll pass some of the expense, but not all of it. They'd only be able to pass along all of the expense if the good had perfectly inelastic demand (which only exists in theory).
-The companies that are able to reduce their carbon emmissions won't have to pass these expenses on to their customers so they'll be able to sell their goods for cheaper, providing lots of incentive for reducing emmissions.

Sorry for jumping off topic.

Not at all off topic.

You're exactly right that McCain was one of the first to tout cap and trade.
And I'd be very much in favor of asking him the same questions.

Won't the companies that are able to reduce their carbon emissions will also have to spend money on technology, air scrubbers, etc. and in turn end up passing that cost on to consumers? In that way, I think that McCain's proposal that also includes an income tax reduction from 35% to 25% would be a remedy for those companies who have further to go to clean themselves up.

Please don't take from my questions that I'm against cap and trade. I don't think it's a perfect system, but it might be the best way to start making companies accountable and at least make them aware(I'm sure there are some who have no idea how much carbon they waste) of their carbon footprints.

Again, I want someone to ask the candidates these types of questions. I want to make sure that they actually know what cap and trade is, and what it's pros and cons are. I want to know that they're not just using the terms because some guy in their campaign strategy office told them to say it.

Wow CNN is a joke

Politics & Religion