If you watch a lot of CNN, as I do at work, you might have noticed something really unusual happening. I knew that most of their shows are horrible sub-par crap, and even though I like a few show hosts (Anderson Cooper, Anthony Bordain's new show, etc), the quality recently tanked. I also despite Piers Morgan, the inferior replacement for Larry King. (Btw, why is an uncharismatic British news exec (who was part of the Rupert Murdoch news organizations in England & thus the scandal) hosting a talk show on CNN?)
News reports had said CNN had let go of all their investigative journalists and were moving towards a more 'panel talk' format.
But just how God-awful this format will be remains to be seen. In the last month, stories which were played all night long included: Martin-Zimmerman trial, birth of baby King George, Ed Snowden's voyage, and now Anthony Weiner's sexy tweets.
But the flaws here are so stunning -- editorial is regularly conflated with reporting, there is no clear fact checking or validation (and lies are tossed out regularly), the news is presented as 'infotainment' and personal dramas, and lastly but most importantly --> the focus of the stories is warped almost completely, the 'narrative' hijacked by CNN, and then the news is retold without the most critical aspects mentioned.
Highlights of flawed coverage:
Zimmerman trial -- why was the case significant to USA? Not because of the drama and the outrage, but because in Florida the police let a man kill a teenager and go home that night without being charged. Because racism and apartheid still exist in the South. Because these new "ALEC" pro-gun laws which are now in effect in many states enable violence against minorities without prosecution. WHY IS IT IMPORTANT THAT AMERICANS STOP RACIST WHITE MEN FROM KILLING BLACK CHILDREN WITHOUT ANY RISK OF PROSECUTION, CNN?
King George birth -- this story annoyed me to no end. Not even a moment spared on the history of USA, people fighting to be free of an oppressive empire, and rather a focus on the British royal family. 'Royalty' -- a tradition people fought in USA to end. WHY WOULD AMERICANS CARE ABOUT BRITISH ROYALTY, CNN?!?! We fought a war to be free of them!
Ed Snowden's voyage -- CNN simply accepts that it's ok for USA to prosecute & pursue a USA whistleblower where 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of press' are guaranteed in Constitution & this secret spy govt is not part of our laws, no coverage of the leaks, no discussion of the collusion between press and govt to keep information out of the hands of the public, no discussion of what the secret USA govt spying on the public means, no followup questions, attacking Glenn Greenwald for covering the story, etc. WHAT IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE LEAKS, CNN??? CNN is too afraid to say.
Anthony Weiner -- OK, he tweeted and did other stuff that married people aren't supposed to do, and Congress people shouldn't do, and married Congress people get embarassed when it's exposed. Got it. But what positions does Weiner take on substantive issues? WHAT STANCE HAS WEINER TAKEN AGAINST THE BIG BANKS, CNN? That's right -- Weiner wants to prosecute the big banks for the bailouts (as did Elliot Spitzer, another guy clobbered by the media).
I'd like to shut off CNN forever & replace it with actual journalism & reporting. But for now, it seems that CNN has joined FOX as a pro-govt spin machine, committed to reporting entertainment only and downplaying / spinning / distorting the real news. Why do they do this? Because the govt and corporations make it worth their while.
Showing posts with label cnn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cnn. Show all posts
CNN bias & US News Media bias
I tried to post this comment to a Blog on Andersen Cooper on CNN asking whether Andersen Cooper is biased. http://www.allthingsandersoncooper.com/2006/07/bias.html
The comment would not get accepted (blogger error?). Reposting my comment here. Thank you blog!
I watch CNN a lot. It is biased. I consider it conservative with rare left-wingers and frequent right-wing 'plants'. I listen to a lot of left-wing media (Democracy Now, Counterspin, Beneath the Surface) and various 'middle ground' media like KQED.
What's so interesting for me about US media is the 'self-branding' is all backwards. Generally media that describes itself as 'Left-Wing' or progressive is actually 'middle', like Green 960 or other similar self-proclaimed Progressive or Liberal media.
Or CNN, which has a huge pro-corporate pro-war bias, but says it is fair & balanced -- yet it never is called to account on those topics. CNN was eager to embed journalists with US military and provides skewed war statistics (only reporting US dead, not reporting US military violations of international law).
Fox News claims to be Conservative, but it is neo-fascistic and controlled by Right-wing thinktanks.
Democracy Now and other sources are truly left-wing 'progressive', from my POV. Trying to get access to truly 'radical' left-wing media is next to impossible in the USA, and probably would be called terrorist or inciting to revolt, so very little of that media makes it to the airwaves (except wrapped in hiphop songs & some metal & punk songs).
Last issue --> has anyone ever heard a news story on CNN discussing GM food co's (Monsanto & similar) terrorizing the rest of the world to force other countries to take GM foods? How about stories on gas co's and futures companies manipulating oil & gas prices? Where are the stories calling into question why Bush called Venezuela and Argentina part of the 'Axis of Evil' (b/c they were anti-capitalist and pro-social welfare)? How about stories about the World Bank enforcing austerity on foreign countries and forcing the poorest groups into abject poverty? How about the 9/11 coverup around the Pentagon attack (missile vs plane), or the ongoing violations of international law re: drone assassination strikes against so-called terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- attacks which are killing many civilians when no 'war' has been declared (and these acts are not terrorism?)?
How about some stories calling into question the unconstitutional use of Blackwater (aka XE Corp) and the US use of mercenaries (so-called 'contractors') to fight in secret foreign and domestic disputes?
Another point -- WikiLeaks. The supposed un-biased media in the USA has not addressed the actual leaks (which are historical in significance) but instead choose to focus on alleged charges of sexual misconduct by the CEO by women who continued dating him for weeks after the events occurred. What about the actual leaks? Why aren't those mainstream media stories? How can the US media get away with not reporting perhaps the most significant news in US History -- which also calls into question the practice of classifying information from the public for no reason other than to obscure the public's knowledge with no risk to US security.
Lastly, where are the stories about Guantanamo and Iraqi torture centers which the President and Congress so far are unable to shut down because the US military has begun acting independently?
THIS is the real issue here. Andersen is completely biased, from my POV, every time he says "Iraqi insurgents", or reports on stories from the US perspective without acknowledging his pro-corporate/pro-financial/pro-US govt biases. Does CNN mention that the USA has never shown the evidence claimed by Bush Jr when Al Queda supposedly attacked the World Trade Center, or that Al Queda was an organization funded by Bush Sr with more than $2 billion,, or that Bush paid to fly the Bin Ladens out of the USA days after 9/11? How hard is it to see these gaps as a clearly blatant bias?
rekzkarz.com
The comment would not get accepted (blogger error?). Reposting my comment here. Thank you blog!
I watch CNN a lot. It is biased. I consider it conservative with rare left-wingers and frequent right-wing 'plants'. I listen to a lot of left-wing media (Democracy Now, Counterspin, Beneath the Surface) and various 'middle ground' media like KQED.
What's so interesting for me about US media is the 'self-branding' is all backwards. Generally media that describes itself as 'Left-Wing' or progressive is actually 'middle', like Green 960 or other similar self-proclaimed Progressive or Liberal media.
Or CNN, which has a huge pro-corporate pro-war bias, but says it is fair & balanced -- yet it never is called to account on those topics. CNN was eager to embed journalists with US military and provides skewed war statistics (only reporting US dead, not reporting US military violations of international law).
Fox News claims to be Conservative, but it is neo-fascistic and controlled by Right-wing thinktanks.
Democracy Now and other sources are truly left-wing 'progressive', from my POV. Trying to get access to truly 'radical' left-wing media is next to impossible in the USA, and probably would be called terrorist or inciting to revolt, so very little of that media makes it to the airwaves (except wrapped in hiphop songs & some metal & punk songs).
Last issue --> has anyone ever heard a news story on CNN discussing GM food co's (Monsanto & similar) terrorizing the rest of the world to force other countries to take GM foods? How about stories on gas co's and futures companies manipulating oil & gas prices? Where are the stories calling into question why Bush called Venezuela and Argentina part of the 'Axis of Evil' (b/c they were anti-capitalist and pro-social welfare)? How about stories about the World Bank enforcing austerity on foreign countries and forcing the poorest groups into abject poverty? How about the 9/11 coverup around the Pentagon attack (missile vs plane), or the ongoing violations of international law re: drone assassination strikes against so-called terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- attacks which are killing many civilians when no 'war' has been declared (and these acts are not terrorism?)?
How about some stories calling into question the unconstitutional use of Blackwater (aka XE Corp) and the US use of mercenaries (so-called 'contractors') to fight in secret foreign and domestic disputes?
Another point -- WikiLeaks. The supposed un-biased media in the USA has not addressed the actual leaks (which are historical in significance) but instead choose to focus on alleged charges of sexual misconduct by the CEO by women who continued dating him for weeks after the events occurred. What about the actual leaks? Why aren't those mainstream media stories? How can the US media get away with not reporting perhaps the most significant news in US History -- which also calls into question the practice of classifying information from the public for no reason other than to obscure the public's knowledge with no risk to US security.
Lastly, where are the stories about Guantanamo and Iraqi torture centers which the President and Congress so far are unable to shut down because the US military has begun acting independently?
THIS is the real issue here. Andersen is completely biased, from my POV, every time he says "Iraqi insurgents", or reports on stories from the US perspective without acknowledging his pro-corporate/pro-financial/pro-US govt biases. Does CNN mention that the USA has never shown the evidence claimed by Bush Jr when Al Queda supposedly attacked the World Trade Center, or that Al Queda was an organization funded by Bush Sr with more than $2 billion,, or that Bush paid to fly the Bin Ladens out of the USA days after 9/11? How hard is it to see these gaps as a clearly blatant bias?
rekzkarz.com
CNN vs Craigslist -- continuing biased, limited reporting
[I emailed this to CNN and posted this comment in Anderson Cooper's CNN blog listing the story, reprinting it here:]
Commenting against craigslist without discussing
the argument of "freedom of speech" is truly awful.
Child porn & prostitution is not the fault of craigslist. It's more a product of class war and capitalism without concern for the lower classes of society. Furthermore, stopping craigslist from freedom of speech weakens the USA and weakens the society.
The govt should protect the children & do something more intelligent with prostitution, like many Euro countries.
The real story is that by making prostitution illegal, prostitutes go to pimps for help & protection. The govt could take care of these women & not criminalize them.
Sorry, CNN, your 'objective' reporting sucks now and it has continually sucked on so many stories (like the peace marches before Iraq war, like the 9/11 evidence of 'inside job', like always calling Iraqis and Afghanis "insurgents" instead of citizens + never giving us even ballpark casualty estimates for the countries the USA has invaded).
CNN has a lot of room for improvement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)