When you watch CNN do you find yourself grinding your teeth down to nubs? They are worse than fox news, in my humble opinion. Over at fox the baboons come out, and you can see that they are baboons, and that's just the women. The men defy words....
We got rid of Lou Dobbs... why not call them on every single word... or lack of words?
CNN really lays claim to being a news channel. Their motto: "The Most Trusted Name In News"... by who... fox... the second most trusted name in news. First of all, gone are the days when any CNN anchor, with the possible exception of Anderson Cooper, could lay claim to having really researched a story. If they did, why does Rachel Maddow seem to know so much more detail than anyone I've heard on CNN. Or do they know and choose not to tell?
CNN here is my advice, first "no bias, no bull" how about "no news, no matter". But the other night I witnessed one woman on CNN ask Michael Chertoff the same question four times, in a different form, to try to get him to say something bad about Janet Napolitono. He would not do it. It reminded me of a CNN interview in which Campbell Brown was upset that President (or maybe candidate) Obama didn't answer the question the way she liked. So.... may I help?
CNN: HERE IS HOW TO GET WHAT YOU WANT OUT OF AN INTERVIEW:
Either write a script so the guest knows what you want, or keep a hammer under your desk, require guests to keep their fingers on the table and keep banging away until they get it right. A word to the unwise: Don't bang more than 10 or so times or the audience may get queasy--er.
While Lou Dobbs was a plain racist, again he was "over the top". It's critical that we start doing what the right is doing. They make the word "liberal" a very negative word.
It's time we started pressuring "news" to stop being a voice for the far right.
I heard on some news, in the background in my house (probably Keith Olbermann), that not one but maybe both travel visa's were given to the "underware arson-terrorist" by the Bush administration, who also had terror information on this guy. Someone else heard it too and mentioned it on Democratic Underground
I wanted to call every news outlet and say "if he didn't have 2 VISAS, DRIVEN OVER TO HIS HOUSE BY CHENEY, (hush, I deserve some fun) we wouldn't have to worry about this". Talk about the source of the problem. So, very rare for me, I turn on CNN. This is what makes me wonder if we really ever get the truth about anything anymore (except on Kos, Rachel, Keith, Jed Lewison, Meteor Blades). All the "anchor" had to do was watch Rachel to get the news, but no. She (last name Hill) interviewed the previous Homeland Security guy, Michael Chertoff. Now, count how many times she tries to get him to say something bad about someone in the Obama administration.
The CNN interview--in part: It begins here with anchor Hill asking Chertoff about Napolitano. http://transcripts.cnn.com/...
HILL: Should fingers be pointed at her solely as being responsible for this, or is there a broader responsibility here?
CHERTOFF: While, yes, I think everybody has some role to play in the process, it would be a mistake to single out one Cabinet secretary and say this was her particular responsibility.
I think you have got to look at the way everybody plays together to make sure that they are carrying out their job. And, frankly, it is the job of the president to lay down the law and to make it a personal mandate to get these elements of cooperation fully working.
HILL: So, you think that more needs to be done by the president himself to make people work together?
CHERTOFF: Well, all I -- I don't know what the president says privately to his people.
But I can tell you President Bush always made it very clear -- and we had weekly meetings on this -- that he took a keen personal interest in the details of what happened in terms of intelligence collection and sharing. And, believe you me, the bureaucracy got that message.
HILL: Do you -- do you feel that President Obama is taking a keen personal interest?
CHERTOFF: As I said, I don't know what he says behind the scenes. I think what he said when he came out a couple of days ago suggests he understands he needs to do it. And I have every reason to believe that he is going to take that personal interest to make sure the job gets done.
HILL: It sounds like, though, you are not -- I mean, just to read between the lines here, it sounds like you are saying you are not necessarily confident that he has been doing that up until this point.
Is that accurate?
CHERTOFF: No, Erica, I think what I'm saying to you is, since I'm not in the meetings, I don't want to speculate about what his style is.
HILL: OK.
CHERTOFF: I have every reason to believe he is committed to this, and I know he knows the responsibility that he has. And, so, I'm going to leave it to him and his spokesmen to speak for his administration.
HILL: Former Secretary Michael Chertoff, we appreciate your time tonight. Thank you.
Four times she tries to get him to "indict" a member of this administration. I'm thinking she's going to reveal the news that Bush gave him the visa's and not a word about that, but four attempts to influence his answer, even put words in his mouth.
When is it news... after he finally gives the answer he wants... some sound bite about Janet Napolatano.