Fox Vs Cnn

[gaffer]

At work they have TV's at various points throughout the building. They are all set to CNN Headline news.

Today I took note that Zoucoward had made a tape and released it on the internet. But I also noted the way he is presented on CNN. While FOX shows the dark grimacing face of this killer, CNN shows a color photo of him smiling and another of him looking to the side and laughing looking like a fine upstanding man. My first impression was look its the HAPPY TERRORIST.

All the FOX broadcast on him show him scowling and nasty looking like the monster he is. CNN dresses him up like Barney, all they needed was the tune "Why Can't We Be Friends" playing while they showed the pictures and everyone would feel good.

Damn liberals are going to turn me into an athiest radical right wing conservative.

 

[krisy]

Don't feel bad,gafer. I too am furious,with the media as a whole.I'm waiting for dinner to get done tonight ,so I go flip on Fox News and Brit Hume was on. Good. As I sat there watching,I just couldn't believe what I was hearing. The problem wasn't Brit at all,but the clip he was playing. It was a press conference yesterday with Scott McClellan(sp?),the poor guy that has to face the jackass press everyday and answer the silly ass questions for the Pres. Anyway,this cocky ass s.o.b. from ABC stands up and basically asks Scott who the Pres and the White House think they are telling Newsweek mag and the media what they should write.He asked "who made you editor in chief"? The guy was such an asshole about it,even Bill O'Reilly said if he would have been there,he would have slapped the guy.Then,some woman stands up(don't remember which brilliant publication she was from).and asks something like-"can we really blame Newsweek for what happened,or was it our fault anyway because the rest of the world had such a low opinion of us anyway". That was the jist of it. I don't think I have ever cursed the t.v. so bad!!! The press is now covering for the guys at Newsweek,and has decided it is the White House's fault this all happened. WTF?!!!!! I just can't take them anymore. It's pathetic biased crap and nothing more.

 

[nakedemperor]

At work they have TV's at various points throughout the building. They are all set to CNN Headline news.

Today I took note that Zoucoward had made a tape and released it on the internet. But I also noted the way he is presented on CNN. While FOX shows the dark grimacing face of this killer, CNN shows a color photo of him smiling and another of him looking to the side and laughing looking like a fine upstanding man. My first impression was look its the HAPPY TERRORIST.

All the FOX broadcast on him show him scowling and nasty looking like the monster he is. CNN dresses him up like Barney, all they needed was the tune "Why Can't We Be Friends" playing while they showed the pictures and everyone would feel good.

Damn liberals are going to turn me into an athiest radical right wing conservative.

What does which file photo they happen to have on this guy have to do with the story they report? Unless they portrayed him as a victim and not a terrorist, this seems like a Fox viewer reaching for something to complain about CNN.

 

[Annie]

Don't feel bad,gafer. I too am furious,with the media as a whole.I'm waiting for dinner to get done tonight ,so I go flip on Fox News and Brit Hume was on. Good. As I sat there watching,I just couldn't believe what I was hearing. The problem wasn't Brit at all,but the clip he was playing. It was a press conference yesterday with Scott McClellan(sp?),the poor guy that has to face the jackass press everyday and answer the silly ass questions for the Pres. Anyway,this cocky ass s.o.b. from ABC stands up and basically asks Scott who the Pres and the White House think they are telling Newsweek mag and the media what they should write.He asked "who made you editor in chief"? The guy was such an asshole about it,even Bill O'Reilly said if he would have been there,he would have slapped the guy.Then,some woman stands up(don't remember which brilliant publication she was from).and asks something like-"can we really blame Newsweek for what happened,or was it our fault anyway because the rest of the world had such a low opinion of us anyway". That was the jist of it. I don't think I have ever cursed the t.v. so bad!!! The press is now covering for the guys at Newsweek,and has decided it is the White House's fault this all happened. WTF?!!!!! I just can't take them anymore. It's pathetic biased crap and nothing more.

Terry MORAN (Moron) is the ABC 'reporter?'

 

[krisy]

Terry MORAN (Moron) is the ABC 'reporter?'

What a nice name. Was he a jerk or what?!!! The press has taken their supposed objectivity to the point of being rude. Just plain rude.

 

[krisy]

What does which file photo they happen to have on this guy have to do with the story they report? Unless they portrayed him as a victim and not a terrorist, this seems like a Fox viewer reaching for something to complain about CNN.

One does not have to reach far to find bias at CNN,Emperor. The bias at CNN is so in your face,you can't help but notice.

 

[Annie]

What a nice name. Was he a jerk or what?!!! The press has taken their supposed objectivity to the point of being rude. Just plain rude.

To make your night, thanks to Hugh Hewitt we have a transcript:

http://www.radioblogger.com/#000697

Wednesday, May 18

Newsweek vs. the White House, according to ABC News' Terry Moran.

We've talked about the bogus Newsweek desecration story for several days now, and so has the White House press corps. Yesterday, in the White House Press Room, Scott McClellan took a question about Newsweek, and said, in essence, that Newsweek ought to do all it can to correct some of the damage they did with their bogus story. Terry Moran, White House correspondent for ABC News, replied, saying that it sounded to him like Scott was trying to be the editor of Newsweek. Elizabeth Bumiller of the New York Times later quipped, very sarcastically, that maybe Scott wanted her to do a story that said how great the military was. Hugh was pretty exercised, played the audio on the show, and asked me to try to reach both Moran and Bumiller. Terry, to his credit, returned the call, and agreed to come on for a segment. It was a heated exchange, and it turned into almost three segments. Without further adieu, here's the interview:

HH: Joined now by Terry Moran, White House correspondent for ABC News. Terry, thank you for joining me here on the Hugh Hewitt Show.

TM: You bet.

HH: We played the tape of your exchange with Scott McClellan yesterday in the White House. Are you anti-military, Terry?

TM: Not at all, no. Not at all.

HH: The interpretation I give to that end, and the one that followed, Elizabeth Bumiller, is that you were astounded that the White House might expect the American media to cover the American military in a favorable light.

TM: I disagree with that interpretation. What I, in fact, agree with the substance of what Scott McClellan was saying, that it would be a good thing for Newsweek to come out try to undo some of the damage that was done by its report. If you notice what I said was, do you think it's appropriate, from that podium, speaking for the president of the United States, to instruct an American magazine as to how to go about its business. And what I was trying to do was draw a line that Scott McClellan agreed with. If you notice later on that you're absolutely right. It's not my position to get into telling people what they can and cannot report. I was just trying to draw that line, that there may be things which are right for the media to do, but that I think that whether you are liberal or conservative, you don't want the government telling the media to do.

HH: Now, Terry, that's just silly. I teach Constitutional law, and I've been a professor doing this for ten years. And when the president's spokesperson suggests something, he's not instructing. He's not commanding. He's using the bully pulpit. And for you to react like he was is silly.

TM: And maybe, being a professor, you're teaching the law. I'm living it. I'm living the First Amendment, and let me explain to you that there is a difference between instructing someone to do someone, or telling somebody to do someone, and someone using the bully pulpit to essentially rally the president's political supporters to pressure the media to do something.

HH: Absolutely, and it's completely legitimate. Why should the media, about whom there is great contempt and distrust, and who just caused the death of sixteen innocent people, as well as the destruction of American interest abroad, be immune from criticism from the elected leader of the United States?

TM: I don't think the media should be immune from criticism. I think the elected leader of the United States has his or her hands full, and plenty of things for the elected leader of the United States to do. I think media criticism is a great thing. I think what you do is a great thing. I do not think it's a great thing for the president's spokesperson to begin instructing the media how to go about its business.

HH: He did not. Terry, he did not. That's trying to play a victim card here. You're not the victim. The victim's the American military. The victims are the dead people in Afghanistan.

TM: Agreed.

HH: The victim are the American people generally.

TM: Agreed. I'm trying...what I'm trying to do is establish a principle here, and let me read you the transcript. We would encourage Newsweek to do all they can to help repair the damage. Pointing out what the policies and practices of the United States military are. And today, the president's spokesman said Newsweek should go on Al Jazeera, and other Arab television networks.

HH: Yes, they should. And there's nothing wrong...

TM: As a matter of fact, I agree with you.

HH: But there's nothing wrong with the president saying that. I'd like you to explain for me what is wrong with the president himself, not his spokesperson, but if the president came down to the press room and said, I think Newsweek ought to get on their knees in front of the American people and beg their forgiveness for causing deaths of innocent people, and injuring our position in the world. What would be wrong with that?

TM: That, in my judgment, would be demagoguery.

HH: Why?

TM: If the president of the United States came before the American people and said that American publication ought to get down on its knees and beg forgiveness, you don't think that's demagoguery, then you've been teaching Constitutional law too long.

HH: I've been a broadcaster for fifteen years. I know demagoguery when I hear it. That's not.

TM: But you practice it.

HH: I do not practice it. I practice good journalism, which is to represent I'm no better than any other American citizen. As a journalist, I don't have...

TM: You're no better than any other American citizen?

HH: Absolutely not. And if the president wants to criticize me, if a Democrat...for example, when Bill Clinton went after Rush Limbaugh, I didn't mind that at all. That's just fine. Rush got a great deal of attention out of it, and the criticism falls where it may. I don't understand...

TM: Well, I defend Rush Limbaugh as well from that.

HH: Why are you guys so thin-skinned? Why don't you understand the contempt the White House press corps is held in by the American public?

TM: Well, I do understand that. I understand it both on the right, people who don't want any kind of challenge to the president they support, and people on the left who think we went easy on the president, and allowed him...

HH: Terry, wait. Time out. Where do you get this, don't want any kind of challenge to the president they support. They're just sick and tired of journalists with big heads and little resumes, acting like they know how the world works. Let me read you from Major K...

TM: Hugh, can I ask you a question? When was the last time you were in Iraq?

HH: I have not been to Iraq.

TM: Huh.

HH: What does that establish?

TM: Little resume.

HH: No. What does that establish about my ability to critique the media, though?

TM: Well, when you talk about big heads and little resume, you've got to look in the mirror...

HH: Yea, it means I watch the media closely. Do I have to go to Iraq to be a media critic?

TM: No, to know what you're talking about, it might help.

HH: I have to go to Iraq to know what I'm talking about the media?

TM: Well, to know how the media is reporting it.

HH: No, to know who you are acting in the White House Press Corps, it might help to have worked in the White House, which I have, and it might have helped to have been a broadcaster for fifteen years.

TM: Oh, well that's the one.

HH: Let me ask you something. Major K, a major in the Army who is reporting from Iraq on his blog all the time says, all this being said, it is no small wonder that a gulf has opened between journalists and the general public. I think even the most John Q. Sixpacks know when they are being fed a line of blank blank blank. My brother called me a journalist once during a conversation about this blog. I was offended. That is a general impression among the American military about the media, Terry. Where does that come from?

TM: It comes from, I think, a huge gulf of misunderstanding, for which I lay plenty of blame on the media itself. There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it's very dangerous. That's different from the media doing it's job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor.

HH: I agree with that completely. I just...I'm glad to hear you say that. That's refreshing. My question to you then, Terry, is what should Newsweek do?

TM: I completely, as I said at the top of this conversation, I agree completely with the substance of what Scott said. I think Newsweek has an obligation to go beyond it's retraction, which it tried to retract. And Newsweek has an obligation to really do some work here, and to get out into the region and the Arab networks and the Arab media, and explain what happened. And I would like to see Newsweek...I was in Iraq, and I'll never forget the Major who told me, look. You guys, I can build a million dollar sewer system and I won't get on television if I paid for it. But if one guy sets off an I.E.D. somewhere and hurts one of my kids, you know, it's going to lead the news.

HH: Can I get you for one more segment?

TM: Yup.

---

HH: Terry, I'll also offer you an invitation to begin the next hour if you can stick. A lot of people want to talk to you, but I'm not going to yield my time to them. Question number one. How long were you in Iraq for? Give us the details. I got an e-mail on that.

TM: I was in for about a month in November, 2003.

HH: Okay.

TM: So it was about six months after...it was before things really got bad, and I very much want to go back. I had to break away from my duties here and convince my superiors to do it. But it was a very valuable experience for me.

HH: And other people have inquired, what's your...how did you end up being the White House correspondent? What's the career path for Terry Moran?

TM: Well, how much do you want to...

HH: Well, tell me where you went to college, and when you got into the media.

TM: I went to college back...I graduated from college back in 1982. I spent a year abroad on a Watson fellowship. I worked for the New Republic for a year, then the Wall Street Journal, and then I spent five years working for the American Lawyer and Legal Times magazine, five years working for Court T.V. I spent three years working for ABC News covering the Supreme Court. I was in Kosovo and Macedonia, covering that war.

HH: How long have you been at the White House?

TM: Since George Bush was inaugurated.

HH: All right. So five years. Is this the most unrelentingly hostile White House Press Corps that you have seen in your professional life as a journalist?

TM: You know, Hugh, that's an interesting question. I came into the White House feeling that the previous White House Press Corps had...was really a low point for the press, because it resulted in this impeachment which, in my judgment, was, you know, there's plenty of blame to go around there, but we now know that that enormous direction of American civic energy and time was all undertaken while Al Qaeda was incubating its plots. And I've talked to, you know, Clinton national security people who say that after Osama hit the embassies in Africa, and Clinton responded with, perhaps inappropriately and insufficiently responded, but with missile strikes in Sudand and Afghanistan, all the White House Press Corps wanted to talk about was wag the dog. This is really about Monica, isn't it? So I came in thinking that I thought that the scandal du jour attitude of the White House Press Corps, during Clinton, was pretty bad, and needed to be changed.

 

[Annie]

What a nice name. Was he a jerk or what?!!! The press has taken their supposed objectivity to the point of being rude. Just plain rude.

2 of 2

HH: And is this worse? This White House Press Corps more hostile to George W. Bush than Clinton's Press Corps was to Clinton?

TM: I think it's a different kind of hostile. I think that under Clinton, partly because he gave...there may have been plenty of ammunition that he handed out, but there was just a relentless hunt for scandal to the distraction of the real policy and security concerns of the United States. I think the country got off track in its press coverage of the presidency in the Clinton administration.

HH: But is it worse now?

TM: Now, I think that there is, you know, you talk to people on the left, they think we gave him a free pass.

HH: No, but what's Terry Moran think?

TM: What do I think?

HH: Yea.

TM: I think that there's...I think there's an attitude...how do I take a pound of flesh out of the president today in any White House. In any White House.

HH: But is this worse than it was under Clinton?

TM: I didn't cover Clinton.

---

HH: Hats off to you, Terry, for sticking around. I know you're pressed for time. We'll make it quick, get a couple of calls in. Five quick questions. ABC News, it's been 118 days since John Kerry promised Tim Russert he would sign the SF-180 form. I went to the ABC News website during the break, there is not one story on that promise, or its abrogation. Why is that?

TM: Well, it's not huge news, I'd say, but I don't make the decisions for ABC News. You know, it just doesn't seem to me to be something that the majority of the country's really clamoring for.

HH: You were in the White House press room when the Texas Air National Guard pledge was made, and there were arguments that Bush had not honored it. It was a frenzy. Why a frenzy then, but not any concern, even a little bit about the SF-180 now?

TM: Well, that is a very good question. I think that the biggest difference, and one for which I'm sure you're grateful, is that George W. Bush is the president of the United States, and John Kerry is the guy who lost the last election.

HH: But who is running again.

TM: There is, in general, a lot less interest in what the loser has done, or is about, or you know, John Kerry is deluding himself, it seems, that he has a continued political life, and perhaps you share that. But I think that when it's the president of the United States, and I agree with you. It was something of a frenzy.

HH: And so, should Kerry follow through on his commitment?

TM: Yes, absolutely.

HH: Are there members of the White House Press Corps, Terry, who actually hate Bush?

TM: I would say the answer to that is yes.

HH: And what percentage of them, do you think that amounts to?

TM: Uh, small, I would say, but some big fish.

HH: What's your guess about the percentage of the White House Press Corps that voted for Kerry?

TM: Oh, very high. Very, very high.

HH: 95%?

TM: Huh?

HH: 95%?

TM: No, I don't think that high. But I would certainly say, you know, it's hard for me, but I'd guess it's in...upwards of 70, maybe higher. You know, it's hard for me to say, but I would say very, very high.

HH: Who'd you vote for?

TM: Well, that's a secret ballot, isn't it?

HH: Well, it is. I'm just asking, though.

TM: I'd prefer not to answer that.

HH: I know you would, but...

TM: It might surprise you, but I'd prefer not to.

HH: No, I'd love to know. I think why does the media resist the idea that, you know, it matters to tell people...it's not going to change my assessment of your reporting on a given basis.

TM: ...which is pretty low. I would say for this reason. Because then everything I would say would get colored by whatever, whoever I voted for, and I would say this, too. The questions I ask, and you know, I can be faulted for all kinds of, you know, all kinds of things. But I would not necessarily make the mistake in assuming that I shared the assumption that underlies the question. Sometimes, I think a question just needs to be asked, because it's a legitimate question that some segment of the citizenry might have of the president of the United States. And so, I try and frame the question as aggressively as I can, for the question's sake, not for mine.

HH: Couldn't agree with you more. I still think that journalists would be better served by transparancy as to their political beliefs and votes, but that's your call.

TM: You may be right. I mean they do that in many other countries.

HH: I want to give a couple of calls. Colonel Don, a United States Marine, who served in Iraq, welcome Colonel to the program, you're on with Terry Moran.

Col: Hi, Hugh. I've got several comments. I don't know how much time I have...

HH: About a minute.

Col: About a minute. Okay. Well, I do question in general, as a private citizen, the patriotism, professionalism, and judgment of many people in the news media. To publish stories about proper corroboration, based on rumor or only one source, is problematic. There's no accountability for bad reporting. The soldiers that had problems in Abu Ghraib, that humiliated those Iraqis, they're getting court martialed. I don't see anything other than the hesitation to own up to this bad press. I think it seems to me it's not concerned about the safety of the troops, or the private citizens in the region in Islamic countries, where it's well known that those countries...a lot of the news media is reported based on allegations, rumors, basically not even fact. And rumors spread like wildfire over there. It's like yelling fire in a crowded theater. The newsmedia attempts to make the news by, for example, when President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier, the news media made a big thing about this mission accomplished banner. That's always put on a ship when it comes back to home port.

HH: Don, I got to interrupt you. I want to ask you, though, how long did you serve in Iraq for?

Col: I was physically only in Iraq for about six weeks.

HH: How about your son?

Col: My son was in about one week. We were lucky in that regard. Our units went in, the Marines came back out of Iraq quickly at that point. And of course, in the meantime, they have since gone back to Iraq.

HH: All right. Terry Moran, your response to Col. Don.

TM: I've got to tell you one thing first. Having been in Iraq and most of the reporters I know who have been in Iraq, when they get exposed to how the U.S. military actually operates, and they work with them, and the military...look. I rode around in some bad places. They save your life. One's perspective changes. So my hat's off to you. I would say that there is accountability in the press. Ultimately, it's essentially what Hugh's doing, it's what the listeners are doing here. If you don't like it, they'll turn it off. Our viewership will go down. The circulation will go down. Aside from the fact that some people get fired for these things, ultimately, the accountability rests with you.

HH: All right, thank you Don. Chuck, you get the last question. Chuck?

Chuck: How much time do I have?

HH: You've got thirty seconds.

Chuck: I'll cut out a lot of what I was going to say, then. Terry, you made a point of asking if Hugh had been there. I don't see that that makes one bit of difference. I can sit down, and I can talk about the difference between radical Islam and mainstream Islam, and how the two have come together, and I'll bet that you can't. I can sit down and talk about Arabic behavior patterns, about dialectics of shame, honor, and power, and challenge you. And I'll bet that you can't. And then you make a snide remark like that? And you wonder why we question the veracity of America's news media?

HH: Well, Chuck, that's okay. We're just battling it out, but Terry...

TM: We were battling it out. I got accused of having a little resume, so I got petty as well, and I do apologize.

HH: I didn't accuse you of having a little resume. I accused a lot of the White House Press Corps of having a little resume.

TM: That's all right.

HH: Now, I get the last question here. Do you think the documents in the CBS scandal were fake?

TM: Absolutely.

HH: Then why has CBS refused to admit as much?

TM: I have no idea. I have no idea. It seemed...I couldn't believe it from the first day, as soon as this stuff hit the blogs, it was pretty clear what was going on. I mean, you know, you wanted to wait for it to get nailed down, but I think that's a big problem. I came up at Court T.V. under a guy named Steve Brill, who used to say once you admitted a mistake, and come fully clean, you improve your credibility. And that's...I think some of the big establishment news organizations, like the one I work for now, have bigger problems doing that, because of the way that they once dominated the media market.

HH: Did you or Elizabeth Bumiller make a mistake in the White House Press Room yesterday?

TM: Did I hear Elizabeth make a mistake?

HH: Yea. Or you?

TM: Oh, did I?

HH: Yup.

TM: No, I...not that I'm aware of. I try to get my facts pretty straight before I go in there.

HH: Did Elizabeth?

TM: I wasn't listening...you know, I have the transcript here. I don't think so.

HH: Okay, it was in here questioning of whether or not...it was a very sarcastic response to the idea that the American media might write a favorable story about the American military. It's occasioned a lot of comment today. Terry, I'm going to let you go. Do you read the blogs by the way?

TM: Absolutely. Every day, all the time.

HH: Which ones?

TM: I always start out at Instapundit, I take a look at LGF, I look at Kos, on the other side, and Joshua Micah Marshall. I'm not a frequenter of your blog, but every once in a while, I'll get linked to it. My brother has a blog, Right Wing Nut House.

HH: Oh, I like Right Wing Nut House.

TM: That's my brother's blog.

HH: Why didn't he work on you? What happened to you? Terry, come back. A great conversation. I appreciate your being accountable to the people out there, and to taking the hard questions. We'll talk to you again soon.

End of interview

 

[Trinity]

What does which file photo they happen to have on this guy have to do with the story they report? Unless they portrayed him as a victim and not a terrorist, this seems like a Fox viewer reaching for something to complain about CNN.

 

[nakedemperor]

One does not have to reach far to find bias at CNN,Emperor. The bias at CNN is so in your face,you can't help but notice.

CNN is probably bias. 'In your face biased'.. not so much. I worked at CNN news last summer. The file photos are dug up and selected by interns, based entirely on clarity and how up to date they are. They're given to the production team who scans and edits them into footage.

If there isn't a photo on file, it is again the *interns* who get on the wire, generally AP, and find a photo, again also selected almost entirely on how up-to-date the image is. When getting photos from the press, you're working with pros, so the images are pretty much all fit for screen.

So yeah, I doubt this is a manifestation of a liberal bias at CNN, even if one exists. Cheers.

 

[krisy]

CNN is probably bias. 'In your face biased'.. not so much. I worked at CNN news last summer. The file photos are dug up and selected by interns, based entirely on clarity and how up to date they are. They're given to the production team who scans and edits them into footage.

If there isn't a photo on file, it is again the *interns* who get on the wire, generally AP, and find a photo, again also selected almost entirely on how up-to-date the image is. When getting photos from the press, you're working with pros, so the images are pretty much all fit for screen.

So yeah, I doubt this is a manifestation of a liberal bias at CNN, even if one exists. Cheers.

I always thought everything went through a producer or some higher up before getting on the air. I am kind of surprised that interns do this.

 

[gaffer]

What does which file photo they happen to have on this guy have to do with the story they report? Unless they portrayed him as a victim and not a terrorist, this seems like a Fox viewer reaching for something to complain about CNN.

They have lots of file photos to chose from. They showed three different ones, all a happy smiling zarcoward. The Happy Terrorist fits the photo.

Fox is the only network I will watch cause I have watched them all before and their blatant lies are just to much for me to stomach anymore. Cnn is one of the worst though abc and cbs are sure close.

All of their reporting is to bash the military and put down the administration. Its been going on for 40 years and I'm getting sick of it. As for reaching, I don't have to reach far to complain about cnn or any other media. They are still doing all they can to undermine the war effort. Its a strategy that worked with Vietnam and they are using it again. Except Fox and the internet bloggers have been turning their little stunts back on them and exposing them for what they are, lairs.

 

[krisy]

Kathianne,I just can't get over the arrogance of this guy......I think my blood pressure is rising!!!

 

[Trinity]

CNN is probably bias. 'In your face biased'.. not so much. I worked at CNN news last summer. The file photos are dug up and selected by interns, based entirely on clarity and how up to date they are. They're given to the production team who scans and edits them into footage.

If there isn't a photo on file, it is again the *interns* who get on the wire, generally AP, and find a photo, again also selected almost entirely on how up-to-date the image is. When getting photos from the press, you're working with pros, so the images are pretty much all fit for screen.

So yeah, I doubt this is a manifestation of a liberal bias at CNN, even if one exists. Cheers.

Well I guess that would explain it!

 

[gaffer]

CNN is probably bias. 'In your face biased'.. not so much. I worked at CNN news last summer. The file photos are dug up and selected by interns, based entirely on clarity and how up to date they are. They're given to the production team who scans and edits them into footage.

If there isn't a photo on file, it is again the *interns* who get on the wire, generally AP, and find a photo, again also selected almost entirely on how up-to-date the image is. When getting photos from the press, you're working with pros, so the images are pretty much all fit for screen.

So yeah, I doubt this is a manifestation of a liberal bias at CNN, even if one exists. Cheers.

Probably bias? That is a major understatement. They are blatantly bias.

Interns pick out the pictures? I would hope that a producer looks over their selections before airing anything. In fact I'm sure a good communist run station like that is very careful in their selection of photos and material. I'm sure there form sister station Tass helped in showing them how to judiciously edit the right material.

Interesting that the cnn website has the dark nasty looking photo of zarcoward, while headline news shows the happy terrorist photos.

 

[freeandfun1]

I have to admit I have seen some good shows on CNN regarding our troops and coverage of some of the recovery process. Granted, they do it trying to pull at people's hearts and such, but all in all I found them interesting but mainly because I am curious about what every day life is really like for the soldiers both over there and recovering over here. I look through the bias and see some pretty interesting stories sometimes. Not too often, but sometimes.

 

[Annie]

Don't feel bad,gafer. I too am furious,with the media as a whole.I'm waiting for dinner to get done tonight ,so I go flip on Fox News and Brit Hume was on. Good. As I sat there watching,I just couldn't believe what I was hearing. The problem wasn't Brit at all,but the clip he was playing. It was a press conference yesterday with Scott McClellan(sp?),the poor guy that has to face the jackass press everyday and answer the silly ass questions for the Pres. Anyway,this cocky ass s.o.b. from ABC stands up and basically asks Scott who the Pres and the White House think they are telling Newsweek mag and the media what they should write.He asked "who made you editor in chief"? The guy was such an asshole about it,even Bill O'Reilly said if he would have been there,he would have slapped the guy.Then,some woman stands up(don't remember which brilliant publication she was from).and asks something like-"can we really blame Newsweek for what happened,or was it our fault anyway because the rest of the world had such a low opinion of us anyway". That was the jist of it. I don't think I have ever cursed the t.v. so bad!!! The press is now covering for the guys at Newsweek,and has decided it is the White House's fault this all happened. WTF?!!!!! I just can't take them anymore. It's pathetic biased crap and nothing more.

Once again I was clicking around and pulled up this site:

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2005/05/18/blood-is-thicker-than-politics/

I had NO IDEA they were brothers! :shocked: More surprising, I was listening to Hugh Hewitt discussing what Terry had said earlier...

May 18, 2005
BLOOD IS THICKER THAN POLITICS
CATEGORY: General
I’ve received several emails from people asking about my feelings regarding my brother riding Scott McClellen at the White House press briefing.

First of all, thank you for your emails and comments. Feedback like this is what separates blogs from the Mainstream Press. However, those expecting me to criticize or even critique what my brother does for ABC news will be disappointed.

I happen to know that, despite what you might think, my brother is a loyal American who loves this country as much as I do. Only good things can flow from that. His job is to ask questions of people in power. Only good things can flow from that. And if it upsets you about the way he does his job, don’t come to this site or email me. Go to the ABC website and talk to them. I am not responsible for how my brother performs his job.

I am responsible for the content of this site which will be unrelenting in its criticism of the MSM and its anti-Bush, anti-war bias – sentiments my brother mostly agreed with on Hugh Hewitt’s show earlier today. The only responsibility toward my brother that I have is the love and affection I feel toward him and his family and the tremendous pride I take in his professional accomplishments.

In a family of 10 children (9 of whom are more liberal than I am) you can imagine some of the dinner table discussions – especially when we were coming of age in the 1970’s. But whatever knock-down, drag-em-out fights that ensued we never lost our love and respect for each other. Blood is thicker than politics. Don’t believe me? Try coming here and dissing my brother…you’ll get an earful back.

Thanks to Hugh Hewitt for asking the tough questions that needed to be asked…and for the link!

Rick Moran posted at 9:55 pm

 

[Adam's Apple]

It was a press conference yesterday with Scott McClellan(sp?),the poor guy that has to face the jackass press everyday and answer the silly ass questions for the Pres. Anyway,this cocky ass s.o.b. from ABC stands up and basically asks Scott who the Pres and the White House think they are telling Newsweek mag and the media what they should write.He asked "who made you editor in chief"? The guy was such an asshole about it,even Bill O'Reilly said if he would have been there,he would have slapped the guy.Then,some woman stands up(don't remember which brilliant publication she was from).and asks something like-"can we really blame Newsweek for what happened,or was it our fault anyway because the rest of the world had such a low opinion of us anyway".

Krisy, you would like this article by David Limbaugh which discusses that press conference, among other things. Click on "A Seminar in Old Media Bias".

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=10

 

[Annie]

Krisy, you would like this article by David Limbaugh which discusses that press conference, among other things. Click on "A Seminar in Old Media Bias".

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=10

Great find Adam's Apple!

check this out:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=285787&postcount=8

about this, from the article:

Question: "Where in the Constitution are judicial nominees guaranteed an up-or-down vote? And what about the impact of this whole so-called 'nuclear option' on this idea of equal representation by the Senate?"

Can you imagine how many additional useless pages the Constitution would contain if the framers had been as vacuous as this questioner? Is this person suggesting that every place the Constitution specifies a certain power it must contain an explicit clause to restate the obvious for the IQ-challenged? The Constitution vests the judicial appointment power in the president, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. Should James Madison have proposed an additional clause saying, "Oh, and we almost forgot, we expect the Senate to exercise its constitutional responsibility to vote on the president's nominees because otherwise the president's appointment power will be meaningless"? Truly, this is almost too silly for words.

As to the equal representation idea, I assume the questioner, as a carrier of Democratic talking points, is implying the Senate should have co-equal authority over judicial appointments. While I don't believe the framers intended for the Senate to reject qualified, honorable nominees for partisan reasons, the Senate does have the legal authority to reject nominees. But as far as I know, no one in the White House or on the Republican side of the Senate is arguing the Democrats aren't entitled to vote against nominees. They're simply saying these nominees are entitled to a vote by the full Senate. If that occurs, the minority position will have been represented and given all the weight the democratic processes and the Constitution affords it. But just listening to the goons in the press, you might get the idea that the president and the GOP Senate majority are supposed to allow the Democrats to prevail half the time – whether or not they have the votes. This is unadulterated, puerile nonsense.