A horrible Suruc explosion ...
a painful Greece tax hike ...
Worthless.both wholly ignored as CNN continues to blather on and on about Donald Trump and Bill Cosby.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
CNN is ...
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
gsa
Well-Known Member
With the exception of PBS, is there any major news source that doesn't cater to the 24 hour outrage cycle? So we have Fox, CNN and MSNBC. They generally report on the same kinds of things (and on each other's coverage), and they even have their own slogans designed with ideological focus (or alleged non-ideological focus, in the case of CNN). I don't know how anyone could take CNN very seriously after their incessant coverage of an airline crash turned into black hole, Bermuda triangle and alien abduction speculation.
Worthwhile journalism takes some serious investigative work, analytical skills and an ability to effectively communicate to a fairly wide audience. So that leaves us with Vice, Frontline, Al Jazeera, etc. The talking head networks have more in common with celebrity obsession than news a fair amount of the time.
Worthwhile journalism takes some serious investigative work, analytical skills and an ability to effectively communicate to a fairly wide audience. So that leaves us with Vice, Frontline, Al Jazeera, etc. The talking head networks have more in common with celebrity obsession than news a fair amount of the time.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Serious journalism also isn't able to produce worthwhile coverage until after an event has taken place, and after the data and information has been studied.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
There is no such thing as "serious journalism" anymore. News isn't about information; it's about entertainment.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Transfixated on the big blue screen
its your window to the outside
a melancholy dream
a medium upon which you build reality
this episodic currency
that everybody needs
somebodies delivery lulls you to sleep
the man behind the weather map
the editor in chief
they control two worlds
power and disease
and you cannot supress you curiosity
but see it's only entertainment
superficial urgency
posterboard mentality
only entertainemnt
tightly constrained
the buzz that remains
is the story of how we run our lives
many our the people poor and suffering
from the lack of coverage
from the transmission beam
and if it ever gets there
you'll be offended too
'cause you cannot distinguish
chicanery from truth
see it's only entertainment
a superficial episode
as life continues to unfold
only entertainment
controlled and copied
they've planted the seed
that sprouts into your picture of the world
can't someone protect me (turn away, turn away)
from this electron beam?
hey you, Mr. FCC
have you no advice for me?
I prefer the free for all news environment we have now.
News used to be so staid due to self censorship.
Back in the day, a Kennedy could count on the press ignoring his affairs.
Things really changed when Matt Drudge stepped up with the Clinton-Lewinsky story.
(Newsweek had suppressed it.)
Do we really need to know of such dalliances?
No.
But we need a press free enuf to report upon them.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
I don't think they were not free to report them, just because they chose not to do so though, you know what I mean?
I largely agree.
But a press which self censors still isn't free....from the perspective of this news consumer.
but how was the Clinton affair anything other then fluff news?
It points to moral & personality defects in a president facing re-election.
Note that NPR (a fed gov created news source) didn't cover the scandal til after
Clinton's re-election.....at which point it posed no real danger to his retaining office.
That should matter to us.
But as I say, its primary importance is that this news wasn't successfully suppressed.
This was because we saw an explosion of alternative easily accessed sources.
This was a good change.
Last edited:
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
I understand what you're saying. If a culture within the industry develops which organically limits information, then the flow of information is not free, right?
I guess it's similar to how industrial cultures develop where a product's ingredients or manufacturing process isn't 100% divulged to the public. While it's not legally restricted, it's still ultimately wrong in the ideal sense.
I like the fact that the internet makes it much easier to explore and examine alternate sources of information. Back in the old days, before cable TV and before internet - all we had were the local channels, network news, and one or two local newspapers.
What floors me is that many local newspapers and other news sites are putting a limit on how many free articles that one can read, hoping people will pay for an online subscription. They think they can charge money for a product which so many many out there are giving away for free. It might actually be worth paying for if these news organizations could prove their worth by actually putting out a quality product. The local mainstream newspaper here is nothing more than a "Pravda" for local government; they don't do any investigative reporting and haven't dug up any real dirt in decades. Useless.
What floors me is that many local newspapers and other news sites are putting a limit on how many free articles that one can read, hoping people will pay for an online subscription. They think they can charge money for a product which so many many out there are giving away for free. It might actually be worth paying for if these news organizations could prove their worth by actually putting out a quality product. The local mainstream newspaper here is nothing more than a "Pravda" for local government; they don't do any investigative reporting and haven't dug up any real dirt in decades. Useless.
People knew that he had extramarital affairs before he was elected in 1992. Didn't seem to make a difference.
Yes, agreed. CNN is the network that had a terrorism expert on to discuss ISIS attending a Pride rally in London. Because they didn't recognize the symbols on a flag were really dildos and buttplugs.
There's a reason why Comedy Central and John Oliver have so much material at their disposal to mock the major journalism networks.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
And why, even though they are unabashedly biased, reproduce more accurate information than their counterparts.
It's really sad when satire has a higher level of journalistic integrity.
Oh, nooooooooo. Not them. They SUCK with ratings that barely keep them on the air
which is a waste of electricity.
Their motive is to make money. To gain an audience and get the higher rating to sell commercials. So whatever news they feel will generate the biggest audience.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
It also showed how accessible this president could be given the proper enticement. (BTW he was the president he surely had more choices than Monica, no offense meant. I guess there's no accounting for taste.)
Servant_of_the_One1
Well-Known Member
I never liked cnn. Aljazeera is the best.