Skip to main content

View Diary: Bush SNAPS at CNN Producer (151 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  CNN Switching? (none)
    Hmmm, I thought CNN was pro-Bush this race.  Are they switching?
    •  They're Still Pro-Conflict, Pro-Sensation (3.88)
      It's just that sometimes it works in our favor.
      •  Maybe, maybe not. (4.00)
        I'm certainly not suggesting that CNN's turning over a new leaf. But the sensationalism criticism can be misapplied to any story for which hightened attention is warranted. Certainly, most of the time sensationalism seems to be the motive. But sometimes the lines get blurry, if only because we're used to the sensationalism.

        Consider this transcript. Normally, at best, what we get is that "He said, she said" crap. This time they actually put a little effort into it.

        ...a second mystery. Why does the issue seem to have caught the White House flat-footed for a second day in a row?

        In this case, I would've just expected them to mention that the White House was caught off-guard and then, for the sake of pseudo-balance, to mention some comparatively inconsequential gaffe by the K/E campaign. Then what could be a story about a substantive issue could just degenerate into some banal analysis about campaign strategy. Instead, in this case at least, they took a different path. Not only did they not pursue the campaign meme, but, miracle of miracles, they actually stuck with the larger, vastly more significant issue, as evidenced by the concluding question:

        The president asked repeatedly on the campaign trail about this, refusing to answer questions. Isn't the American public entitled to hear from the president on this dangerous story?

        Better late than never.

        "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

        by machopicasso on Wed Oct 27, 2004 at 11:37:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you (none)
          That puts it perfectly.  Many people still don't get that the problem with the media isn't overt slant one way or the other.  The problem is exactly as you put it; laziness and money.
          •  networks (none)
            are pro-"whatever prevents thier target market audiance from changing channels".

            Studies have been done that show that if someones belief system is being validated they are more likely to watch longer... and in the TV network business even 10 or 15 seconds more from thier viewers represents millions of dollars worth of advertising audiance share.

            I believe that even Fox would switch it's ideological tune if thier lobotimized viewers ever started to wake up.

            It's all about the $$$$$$

            "You must do the things you think you cannot do." -- Eleanor Roosevelt

            by DoDi on Wed Oct 27, 2004 at 02:07:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, (none)
            I do think an overt slant is part of the problem and am not confident that all of the shortcomings of the SCLM can be explained merely on account of laziness and desire for profit (though there's plenty of that, as well). In this case, I just wanted to draw a distinction with regard to the CNN story under discussion.

            "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

            by machopicasso on Wed Oct 27, 2004 at 02:09:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree... (none)
              I think the networks actually are biased.  And if not, they're so stupid they might as well be, seeing as they just parrot the Republican talking points.  

              In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

              by Asak on Wed Oct 27, 2004 at 10:08:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Why flat-footed? (none)
          They are wondering why the October surprise bombshell at the Washington Times wasn't being pushed.  After all, it's important that Kerry only met with the permanent members of the security council before the Iraq War Resolution vote and not the complete security council.

          </sarcasm>

          Proud member of the reality-based community.

          by Unstable Isotope on Wed Oct 27, 2004 at 06:11:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  sdf (4.00)
        This is exactly the point.  The pro-republican media basis isn't a result of (in my opinion) of television "journalists" leaning conservative to protect their tax cuts and corporate paymasters, it's to sensationalize and simplify.  It's just that the republicans have a well-oiled media manipulation machine and echo chamber which creates media feeding frenzies out of thin air.  

        The media is happy to feed off of Bush when a compelling scandal erupts, but us dems do not drive the news psycho as often because (a) we don't have the message discipline the republicans have honed, (b) most of our elite aren't just willing to make shit up and and (c) we are much less successful at working the refs cause we don't have 30 years of bitching about every little supposed example of "bias"

        We are getting better with message discipline (our party really hobbled itself by relying totally on Clinton's magic, we had one guy who could do message discpline for all of us but they have a whole party built on it).  Obviously, we are ceding the lying to the republicans, most of our top people are just too intellectually honest to engage in the ridiculousness the republicans do (Vince Foster ring a bell).  

        We have really geared up on working the refs and it is showing dramatic results with Sinclair backing down and MSNBC dumping Luntz on debate night, etc.  But we are new to this as an organized force and we have to fight the republicans on ground they are much more familar with and they have a lot more money invested in it.  We've come a long way since the Fall of 2002 when our party and the media failed us miserably, let's hope the worm has turned in time.  

        •  asd (none)
          news "psycho" was a bad pun I meant to erase before posting, sorry about that.  
        •  I actually meant to put my above response here (none)
          But it applies up there too.  4s for both of you!
        •  dont divorce press from power (none)
          >The pro-republican media basis isn't a result of (in my opinion) of television "journalists" leaning conservative to protect their tax cuts and corporate paymasters, it's to sensationalize and simplify.

          No.  Think of all the money that could have been made by:

          1. Letting anti-war and pro-war people have at it on the airwaves. Instead very few anti-war positions were allowed on the air and the ones that did were poor commentators.

          2. Taking a stand and showing military coffins. Or interviewing disgrunted soliders.

          3. Talking about FCC issues like, oh gee, ownership bias, deregulation, etc.

          4. Calling out Fox news to task for being conservative. (they cant, they are all soaking in it).

          5. Covering palestine like the international media does.  Thats ratings magic right there.

          6. Covering Flordia 2000 like Greg Palast did.

          etc.

          I can write this list all day. If people want to believe its just about profits, thats fine, but theres more to life than just money for these people.

          Murdoch and Moon are big on activism. They want to change the world, and they can because they have the money and the media to do it.  I dont think you'd like to live in their world because it really doesnt come down to just money. Power, religion, ideology, et al are just as important, especially when you as wealthy as they are so they can take financial hits for their ideologies.  The WashTimes doesnt make money, but it will never go out of business.  Funny how that works.

          •  don't divorce profits from profits (none)
            Sure there is money to be had in letting the pro and anti war folks fight it out.  But there is more, much more money to be made in selling weapons systems to fight the war.  At least I think that's NBC's (GE) excuse.  Disney/ABC seems to just be pretty conservative.  I don't know what Viacom/NBC's excuse is.  

            In the struggle against evil, there is no shame in defeat -- only in not fighting. -Tolkien

            by Sedge on Wed Oct 27, 2004 at 07:59:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Not much... (none)
      Immediately after that story, she played a clip of Rush Limbaugh's take on the situation.  WHA' DA HELL do we care about Limbaugh's take on the situation.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site