See my edit above... don't be angry with me. I'm just the messenger.
Awwww... I love you too Moogywoogums... but tomorrow morning, could you *please* make the bed?
Quote:
Seriously, it's not a conspiracy at all. I find it very easy to believe... that ANY press secretary or press official from ANY administration, is constantly eyeing CNN and other networks. And in fact, they do. Most of their "10 hour days" are spent watching the news media, so that they can constantly keep on-message and keep on top of things as they arise.
Absolutely.
Quote:
That the White House (and by that I simply mean Bush's press officials) would call up right away and say "Hey guys that kid wasn't there", doesn't surprise me even a little. Because they know, 9 times out of 10, the CNN's of the world will take it as gospel and report it. That's what happened here.
And it may have! In which case the stupidity was at the White House... but it still isn't an evil conspiracy, is it?
Quote:
What needs to happen in an ideal world, is that the CNN's say "ok, we'll check up on that and run the retraction if it proves appropriate." And then when it doesn't, they either: call the Whitehouse and tell them to take it up with CBS, or they run a different sort of story saying "The Whitehouse said X about CBS' tape, but CBS has provided details x,y and z. After hearing this the Whitehouse had no further comment, blah blah."
Hell, that'd happen in a semi-ideal world with good journalism standards.
To get back to the point... I want to understand why:
a) people jumped on this as proof of evil conspiratorial shenannigans between the White House and CNN
b) it was seen as deliberately intentional when it was easily explainable as a stupid accident *somewhere*
c) there's a two-sided treatment of CNN's journalistic veracity? On the one hand, they're just a WH mouthpiece. OTOH, they correctly and accurately reported that 'the WH said...', and there's no room for error there.
I'm afraid that this is going to be one of the great cosmic mysteries I simply don't understand. Frankly, I'm not sure I want to.
What possible motivation does CNN have for claiming factual retractions after running that clip?
The ONLY possible source for the double-retraction (on a filler story), is someone in the administration....
The story is not harmful to their image, it's harmful to the President's. Put two and two together here... no conspiracy theory needed. The whole thing is plain as day.
What happens if they decide after the first running of the tape that they made a mistake? CNN person who was there say "I didn't see that, kid, we've been scammed?" It doesn't take much to get that first retraction.
(After they make the _first_ mistake, it _is_ harmful to _their_ image! Still no conspiracy required.)
CNN spokeswoman Christa Robinson noted that "we frequently air late-night comedy show clips," on Thursday she confirmed the "misunderstanding among our staff" surrounding the yawning-boy video.
From the rest of the text it is clear she is confirming that they never heard _anything_ from the Whitehouse. 'misunderstanding' sort of implies people were joking about it to me as well.
From the rest of the text it is clear she is confirming that they never heard _anything_ from the Whitehouse. 'misunderstanding' sort of implies people were joking about it to me as well.
Oh come on, you *know* that CNN is just taking the fall for the WH... it's all part of Their Plan.
My venom at CNN is from really idiotic things they've pulled over the years that just illustrate that the average person hasn't a clue when it comes to issues that they vote on. Usually it's been something a talking head has said on camera, off the cuff, that is *so* far removed from reality. And yet, the viewing audience will eat it up.
If they're screwing up basic facts that are empirically wrong, and that anyone with a high school (or lower) education should know, then why should I trust that they have the more esoteric things correct?
I agree that our media *are* for the most part just mouthpieces for whoever shoves them a quote, no matter who that may be. Fact-checking? Feh. Veracity? Why bother? Just get it on air/in print ASAP, and damn the accuracy.
You know Kick, you're kind of sexy when you get angry... I think I prefer the crack-monkey thing to the smilies. You brute.
Now listen. Maybe I could've made my original argument less passionately (but then I wouldn't be as sexy), but what I am trying to say overall is this:
It's not that there is some evil conspiracy between CNN and the Whitehouse. More like, federal officials of all stripes in this country have been conditioned to see outlets like CNN as a spin-vehicle and not a reporting vehicle.
IOW, they know CNN and others have half-assed reporting standards, and so they use that to their advantage. They use it to manipulate public opinion, basically. And CNN is a part of that "system of manipulation", so long as they refuse to be more rigorous in their reporting. It's not that CNN's intention is to protect George Bush, but rather they are accessories to the proverbial crime because they (unwittingly we hope) provide the vehicle for the same.
They allow themselves to be used because of their apathy towards checking all the facts that someone spoonfeeds them. Dig?
What I failed to see, in this case, is how it was proof that the White House was lying. In this case. Over this tape. That's all. And yet, it seemed to be the assumption on some people's parts.
CNN spokeswoman Christa Robinson noted that "we frequently air late-night comedy show clips," on Thursday she confirmed the "misunderstanding among our staff" surrounding the yawning-boy video.
From the rest of the text it is clear she is confirming that they never heard _anything_ from the Whitehouse. 'misunderstanding' sort of implies people were joking about it to me as well.
This is what I hate about CNN.
Leave the joking around for Anderson Cooper or else clearly demarcate when the truth ends and the joking begins. Smarmy off the cuff wisemarks are great in the context of his show. But don't frigging bandy about the phrase ""we're being told by the Whitehouse" unless the reality is you are being told by the Whitehouse. What's so hard about saying "I'm just kidding, they didn't tell us that" if it was just a joke?
There was a period in which Anderson Cooper was on vacation or on assignment and a bunch of the typical anchors hosted his show, but the material was all written "for" Anderson Cooper's voice and delivery. Here we had the normal usually serious anchors doing lame punchlines to real stories and it was jarring in that we come to expect seriousness from them. It also flopped comedically since they just don't have the personality to pull off a good one liner etc.
What I failed to see, in this case, is how it was proof that the White House was lying. In this case. Over this tape. That's all.
Hmmm. So you're suggesting the people in the [Press Secretary's office] did not know they were making something up when they called CNN with the allegation that the tape was bogus? Either they *knew* it to be bogus, or they wanted people to *think* it was bogus (and suspected it was), but didn't know for sure.
My money is on option 2. They took a gamble and got mud on their face. Maybe they assumed Letterman wouldn't say anything?
It's not even so much about facts as delivery and intent.
They could both say exactly the same facts and have it come out radically different from each other.
Mostly the in between chit chat on Fox is so over the top and drippingly superpatriotic whereas CNN is just bland and sneakily left leaning.
But both can be just as factual as the other. It's the spin put on the facts that is the key.
I totally agree 100% with this, except they do pass along false info that supports the station's viewpoint. I posted an example of this in the against all enemies thread earlier today:
Hmmm. So you're suggesting the people in the [Press Secretary's office] did not know they were making something up when they called CNN with the allegation that the tape was bogus? Either they *knew* it to be bogus, or they wanted people to *think* it was bogus (and suspected it was), but didn't know for sure.
My money is on option 2. They took a gamble and got mud on their face. Maybe they assumed Letterman wouldn't say anything?
And we're back into the crack monkey pit.
No, I'm suggesting that CNN has not clearly said in the aftermath that there ever *was* a call from the White House, and indeed, Nevyn's post indicates that there really is some confusion over that simple point.
The assumption that yes, indeedy do, there definitely *was* a call is the entire thing I'm calling into question.
Until we hear 100% one way or the other, this issue will never be resolved here.
Comments
Originally posted by Moogs
See my edit above... don't be angry with me. I'm just the messenger.
Awwww... I love you too Moogywoogums... but tomorrow morning, could you *please* make the bed?
Seriously, it's not a conspiracy at all. I find it very easy to believe... that ANY press secretary or press official from ANY administration, is constantly eyeing CNN and other networks. And in fact, they do. Most of their "10 hour days" are spent watching the news media, so that they can constantly keep on-message and keep on top of things as they arise.
Absolutely.
That the White House (and by that I simply mean Bush's press officials) would call up right away and say "Hey guys that kid wasn't there", doesn't surprise me even a little. Because they know, 9 times out of 10, the CNN's of the world will take it as gospel and report it. That's what happened here.
And it may have! In which case the stupidity was at the White House... but it still isn't an evil conspiracy, is it?
What needs to happen in an ideal world, is that the CNN's say "ok, we'll check up on that and run the retraction if it proves appropriate." And then when it doesn't, they either: call the Whitehouse and tell them to take it up with CBS, or they run a different sort of story saying "The Whitehouse said X about CBS' tape, but CBS has provided details x,y and z. After hearing this the Whitehouse had no further comment, blah blah."
Hell, that'd happen in a semi-ideal world with good journalism standards.
To get back to the point... I want to understand why:
a) people jumped on this as proof of evil conspiratorial shenannigans between the White House and CNN
b) it was seen as deliberately intentional when it was easily explainable as a stupid accident *somewhere*
c) there's a two-sided treatment of CNN's journalistic veracity? On the one hand, they're just a WH mouthpiece. OTOH, they correctly and accurately reported that 'the WH said...', and there's no room for error there.
I'm afraid that this is going to be one of the great cosmic mysteries I simply don't understand. Frankly, I'm not sure I want to.
Originally posted by Moogs
What possible motivation does CNN have for claiming factual retractions after running that clip?
The ONLY possible source for the double-retraction (on a filler story), is someone in the administration....
The story is not harmful to their image, it's harmful to the President's. Put two and two together here... no conspiracy theory needed. The whole thing is plain as day.
What happens if they decide after the first running of the tape that they made a mistake? CNN person who was there say "I didn't see that, kid, we've been scammed?" It doesn't take much to get that first retraction.
(After they make the _first_ mistake, it _is_ harmful to _their_ image! Still no conspiracy required.)
Follow this news report (with stills):
Local 6 news
Off clip 24:
CNN spokeswoman Christa Robinson noted that "we frequently air late-night comedy show clips," on Thursday she confirmed the "misunderstanding among our staff" surrounding the yawning-boy video.
From the rest of the text it is clear she is confirming that they never heard _anything_ from the Whitehouse. 'misunderstanding' sort of implies people were joking about it to me as well.
Originally posted by thegelding
kick's new phrase seems to be "crack monkey"
g
It is not, you crack monkey!
Crack monkey, crack monkey, crack monkey, crack monkey.
Originally posted by Nevyn
From the rest of the text it is clear she is confirming that they never heard _anything_ from the Whitehouse. 'misunderstanding' sort of implies people were joking about it to me as well.
Oh come on, you *know* that CNN is just taking the fall for the WH... it's all part of Their Plan.
Mr. Akumulator could you please find out what was going on?
Seriously, I'd love to know more.
My venom at CNN is from really idiotic things they've pulled over the years that just illustrate that the average person hasn't a clue when it comes to issues that they vote on. Usually it's been something a talking head has said on camera, off the cuff, that is *so* far removed from reality. And yet, the viewing audience will eat it up.
If they're screwing up basic facts that are empirically wrong, and that anyone with a high school (or lower) education should know, then why should I trust that they have the more esoteric things correct?
I agree that our media *are* for the most part just mouthpieces for whoever shoves them a quote, no matter who that may be. Fact-checking? Feh. Veracity? Why bother? Just get it on air/in print ASAP, and damn the accuracy.
That's why I dislike CNN - it's McNews.
Originally posted by HOM
Um, AI has a source inside CNN.
Mr. Akumulator could you please find out what was going on?
Sorry, it's my day off.
Originally posted by Akumulator
Sorry, it's my day off.
Uh-huh. *Convenient.* And *who* made your schedule?
Yup, you got it.
THEM.
Now listen. Maybe I could've made my original argument less passionately (but then I wouldn't be as sexy), but what I am trying to say overall is this:
It's not that there is some evil conspiracy between CNN and the Whitehouse. More like, federal officials of all stripes in this country have been conditioned to see outlets like CNN as a spin-vehicle and not a reporting vehicle.
IOW, they know CNN and others have half-assed reporting standards, and so they use that to their advantage. They use it to manipulate public opinion, basically. And CNN is a part of that "system of manipulation", so long as they refuse to be more rigorous in their reporting. It's not that CNN's intention is to protect George Bush, but rather they are accessories to the proverbial crime because they (unwittingly we hope) provide the vehicle for the same.
They allow themselves to be used because of their apathy towards checking all the facts that someone spoonfeeds them. Dig?
What I failed to see, in this case, is how it was proof that the White House was lying. In this case. Over this tape. That's all. And yet, it seemed to be the assumption on some people's parts.
Oh, and...
Crack monkey.
Originally posted by Nevyn
Off clip 24:
CNN spokeswoman Christa Robinson noted that "we frequently air late-night comedy show clips," on Thursday she confirmed the "misunderstanding among our staff" surrounding the yawning-boy video.
From the rest of the text it is clear she is confirming that they never heard _anything_ from the Whitehouse. 'misunderstanding' sort of implies people were joking about it to me as well.
This is what I hate about CNN.
Leave the joking around for Anderson Cooper or else clearly demarcate when the truth ends and the joking begins. Smarmy off the cuff wisemarks are great in the context of his show. But don't frigging bandy about the phrase ""we're being told by the Whitehouse" unless the reality is you are being told by the Whitehouse. What's so hard about saying "I'm just kidding, they didn't tell us that" if it was just a joke?
There was a period in which Anderson Cooper was on vacation or on assignment and a bunch of the typical anchors hosted his show, but the material was all written "for" Anderson Cooper's voice and delivery. Here we had the normal usually serious anchors doing lame punchlines to real stories and it was jarring in that we come to expect seriousness from them. It also flopped comedically since they just don't have the personality to pull off a good one liner etc.
And FOXNEWS....well...
They don't need to make things up to be funny...
http://download.consumptionjunction....a/cj_13954.wmv
(If that is "old" to you, then 5 condescending pats on your little head. If not, enjoy)
Originally posted by Kickaha
Of course they knew - they were probably laughing their asses off with the rest of us at the poor kid, Bush or no Bush.
Man, that kid was funny.
I don't like CNN. Of course, they still are 1000000 times more factual than Fox could ever hope to be, if Fox really cared about the facts.
Originally posted by giant
Of course, they still are 1000000 times more factual than Fox could ever hope to be, if Fox really cared about the facts.
It's not even so much about facts as delivery and intent.
They could both say exactly the same facts and have it come out radically different from each other.
Mostly the in between chit chat on Fox is so over the top and drippingly superpatriotic whereas CNN is just bland and sneakily left leaning.
But both can be just as factual as the other. It's the spin put on the facts that is the key.
Originally posted by Kickaha
On that we're in agreement.
What I failed to see, in this case, is how it was proof that the White House was lying. In this case. Over this tape. That's all.
Hmmm. So you're suggesting the people in the [Press Secretary's office] did not know they were making something up when they called CNN with the allegation that the tape was bogus? Either they *knew* it to be bogus, or they wanted people to *think* it was bogus (and suspected it was), but didn't know for sure.
My money is on option 2. They took a gamble and got mud on their face. Maybe they assumed Letterman wouldn't say anything?
Originally posted by johnq
It's not even so much about facts as delivery and intent.
They could both say exactly the same facts and have it come out radically different from each other.
Mostly the in between chit chat on Fox is so over the top and drippingly superpatriotic whereas CNN is just bland and sneakily left leaning.
But both can be just as factual as the other. It's the spin put on the facts that is the key.
I totally agree 100% with this, except they do pass along false info that supports the station's viewpoint. I posted an example of this in the against all enemies thread earlier today:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=40255
Scroll down to the part about miniter. And that's just one example of many.
Originally posted by Moogs
Hmmm. So you're suggesting the people in the [Press Secretary's office] did not know they were making something up when they called CNN with the allegation that the tape was bogus? Either they *knew* it to be bogus, or they wanted people to *think* it was bogus (and suspected it was), but didn't know for sure.
My money is on option 2. They took a gamble and got mud on their face. Maybe they assumed Letterman wouldn't say anything?
And we're back into the crack monkey pit.
No, I'm suggesting that CNN has not clearly said in the aftermath that there ever *was* a call from the White House, and indeed, Nevyn's post indicates that there really is some confusion over that simple point.
The assumption that yes, indeedy do, there definitely *was* a call is the entire thing I'm calling into question.
Until we hear 100% one way or the other, this issue will never be resolved here.