SOTU Aftermath
Hi everybody. Well, that was very nice of blogger to have technical difficulties during the SOTU. Thank God I wasn't trying to live blog. So did you guys watch the speech? I didn't watch, so much as listened while surfing the net. Every once and a while when Bush said something particularly outrageous I would turn and yell at the tv like your average crazy person. You see what he's done to me? I don't know why I was looking forward to all this hoopla because in the end I found the speech and the coverage very mundane. I've gotten to the point where I am just sick to death of politics because no one is saying anything new or noteworthy. It just breaks down to a bunch of empty rhetoric. As for 360, I didn't really enjoy the show, but I don't blame them for this one. They can't control what other people do or don't say. Anyway, there will be no grade for tonight because though I set out to do a recap like usual, that idea got thrown out pretty quickly. When there are no packaged pieces blogging the show becomes a lot more difficult. So in no particular order, here are my random observations from the show:- I like that Anderson was kind of tough with Obama. I've seen a lot of journalists under his spell and softballs are thrown. I like Obama a lot, but I want everyone asked the hard questions. Also, in a weird way I found Obama's story about having his face superimposed over Bin Laden's to be sort of comforting because it's evidence that he can handle what's about to come his way. Because it's going to get tough for him. Extremely tough.
- Anderson asked both Obama and Edwards if they were surprised Bush didn't mention New Orleans. I'm guessing this was something that angered Anderson. It angered me too, but I can't say I was surprised. I actually wondered if he would mention it and guessed that he probably wouldn't. I honestly don't think the man cares at all about the ongoing recovery. It's ironic that this was a speech about the state of our union and the big gaping wound on our union wasn't even mentioned.
- I really don't like Kit Bond. I know, that's not exactly an insightful or mature thing to note, but it's the truth. My senior senator usually keeps a pretty low profile in the national press, but I can tell you he's been pretty worthless for my state. And he either never emails me back when I contact him or his office will send a form email that doesn't address anything that I actually brought up. It irks me.
- When Anderson asked John Roberts if anyone would remember this speech I yelled, "No!" There wasn't even anything in it that was blatantly mockable like a human-animal hybrid mention. Remember that? That was quite the WTF moment. Although I'm sure Jon Stewart and company will find plenty of more subtle things to snark on. For the record, John Roberts said the only way the speech would be remembered would be if Bush actually got something done. I'm not holding my breath.
- I liked the Joe Johns piece that recapped all the previous Bush failures: social security, energy independence, permanent tax cuts, medical malpractice reform, and immigration reform. Not that I wanted all that stuff to fail, but it's nice to know someone is keeping track. I also liked how Joe pointed out that the SOTU is merely a wish list. It's kind of funny what a big deal is made over this speech when in reality it's actually pretty meaningless.
- Paul Begala and Mike Murphy were okay. I think I actually like Mike a little better even though I don't agree with him. Something about Paul annoys me, though I did appreciate him pointing out how Bush used the slam "democrat" right after his nice moment with Nancy Pelosi. Anderson looked a little skeptical-like maybe Bush simply slipped up or something. However, I'm totally with Paul on this one. Bush sends coded messages to his base all the time in his speeches. It sounds completely crazy, but it's true. I actually never believed it until I heard him talking about the Dred Scott decision during one of the 2004 debates. I was completely confused what that had to do with anything, so I looked it up and found it was a code phrase for Roe vs. Wade.
- Did anyone else get an image of Cheney with a shotgun whenever Paul Begala mentioned Bush not just being a lame duck, but a dead duck?
- Paul's suggestion to send Clinton to Iraq was...interesting. Wouldn't it be awesome if Bush did send Clinton and he fixed everything? The winger's heads would explode. Did you catch Mike Murphy's Clinton slam/joke? He said that if Clinton went to Iraq there'd be a recession in the nightclubs of New York. This barb got absolutely no reaction from Anderson. Not even an eye blink.
- It was awesome to see Michael Ware safe in Washington, although it's clear he was not impressed with the speech. I absolutely love how he just tells it like it is.
- I'm liking Andrew Sullivan a lot better than I did before. I've always liked to read him in print, but previously found that he came off like a jerk on tv. Of course his stance on everything has changed since then, so that probably has something to do with it. I think maybe before he was still fooling himself and that came across to me. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but I find him to be very honest now and that I value more than people having my exact views. And I loved that he backed Paul up on the "democrat" story.
- It sounds like Jim Webb was a hit with the pundits. Usually they either ignore the democratic response all together or they slam it. So yay! I am a little curious though as to why Andrew thinks it's important for the speaker to have testosterone (he praised Jim Webb using that word). Because if that's something you have to have for the SOTU that could be problematic for Hillary. Just saying.
Screencap by liberation337.
posted by eliza at 12:48 AM
34 Comments:
Interestingly enough, Hurricane Katrina and the response was discussed in my Sociology book at school.
I'm glad someone is asking tough questions. I can't stand the pansy approach.
And- that testosterone comment was either directed at The Shrub (by saying he has no balls) or at Hillary (by saying SHE has no balls).
Don't worry your not the only one who had the speech on, but was doing surfing - I learned to multi task while watching 360.
I love the way Anderson doesn't play favorites with anyone. With other news outlets they seem to have their favorite guests who supposidly have all the correct answers and are never questioned about them. Anderson is way above these guys in intelligence, and asks the hard questions no matter who it is.
As for Katrina things are not done anywhere in the Gulf Coast. I love Anderson dearly and am proud of what he has done for NOLA, but what about the rest of the region? I may get slammed for saying that, but it's the truth. An occassional update on MS would be nice.
@sharla-It's just that all these people seem to have admired Bush because he's "tough" and I never understood this because who cares if you're tough if you're completely wrong in everything you do?
@billie-I'm a huge multi-tasker during 360. I probably spend more time listening to the show than I do actually watching it.
I also love the way Anderson doesn't play favorites with politicians. I flipped on Chris Matthews the other day and caught him telling Bill Richardson (at least I think it was him) that everyone likes him. Now how can he possibly makes such a statement? That being said, Anderson is soft on other people. Oprah comes to mind.
I completely agree with your comments about MS. When I say NO I'm pretty much referring to the whole gulf coast-I'm just being lazy with my typing.
on the previous post topic -- did you see (on tvnewser) that Faux news spokesman called his remark about Obama story "yet another cry for attention by the Paris Hilton of television news, Anderson Cooper." Paris Hilton?! Hm, and I thought these guys can't go any lower.
@Ivy-As soon as Anderson made that comment I knew they'd hit him back, but I didn't know it would be with something so stupid. Paris Hilton? I don't even get it. Because they both come from money maybe?
it's all over blogs already, even on huffington post, which to my surprise a lot of comments defended Anderson: probably their dislike of Fox took over this time. What does fox try to imply? I guess that he comes from a wealthy family but sure part of it is comapring him to a woman (and you know what kind of hint that is). It's so much easier then to discuss how news are covered. Or if they are comparing their inheritance money and work schedule, education or tv career check the facts. Oh, no, do they have to check the facts again?
I just read the Huffington Post's blurb about it. I think Fox was referring more to money and not the other thing, though that's still completely uncalled for. I don't get why everyone always has to leap to the other thing. I mean, the end of the Huff Post blurb was kind of uncalled for too IMO.
@eliza --it was totally uncalled for, I agree, but that's huffington for you, they still have spectial love for Anderson. I agree, I guess it was about the family and being empy-headed
I was crushed, CRUSHED, I tell ya, that the Prezzident didn't say more about how he plans to send us to Mars. What about Mars, Mister Prezzident? Huh?
More broken promises... *sob*
Geez, I can't believe they compared Paris to Anderson. That is SO GROSS.
@arachnae-Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the Mars thing. Hey, according to a report I saw on Countdown our Mars Rover thingee may have actually found life on the planet...and accidentally squashed it. Oops.
I can't believe I actually listened to the speech last night. I know we need medical insurance for everyone, but why do the people that have it are going to wind up paying more. Why can't the goverment come up with this? Did I miss understand this point?
Also I also couldn't believe that he did not mention the Gulf Coast. It is like that whole ordeal to the people in the Gulf Region is out of site, out of mind to Bush. It just infuriates me and I don't even live in that area, so I can't even imagine what they are going through. You know Anderson was disappointed that it wasn't mentioned.
As for the Paris Hilton comment, Fox is just jealous that Anderson ratings are going up. Hopefully they are just talking about being rich.
I didn't listen to the speech but heard the snippets on 360. I enjoyed the show last night basically because of the interview with Obama, Edwards, Michael Ware and the Joe Johns report It is true that Anderson was tough on Obama and I think he's been this way since Obama started become more and more popular. AC was always questioning whether or not he could live up to the 'hype' surrounding him. I sort of like Andrew Sullivan because he does attempt to critique the failings of his own party and doesn't try to pretend that they haven't screwed up royally. Bush would like to forget Katrina ever happened which is disgusting--I'm glad AC questioned Obama and Edwards about this. I was wondering why AC didn't respond to Murphy's Clinton slam but I guess he either didn't hear it or didn't want to say something that might come back to haunt him.
Why do I get the feeling that Hillary Clinton has more testosterone than most men?!
@Jan-Yep. It's all publicity for them. And of course the media gossip sites love it.
@midnight-I'm a little skeptical of the Obama hype myself. He's one of my favorites, but, uh, he's not God. He's not going to save us from this mess.
I kind of wonder if AC even got Murphy's slam. Maybe it's just me, but I had to think about it for a second. A quick second, but still.
And yeah, Bush wrote off the Gulf a long time ago. Bastard.
What? We squashed WHAT?! I heard about the "water rivulet looking marking" in the crater, but I didn't hear anything about squishing a Martian....
LOL I don't think we actually squashed a Martian. They just said if there was life in the place it landed (and in this case life doesn't mean a full grown thinking thing) we might have squashed it.
I did not watch the speech. President Bush gives me hives and dry heaves.
On a more serious note, I also do not like Kit Bond. :P
Saw the screencaps of Michael Ware and Anderson over at ATA. Good to see MW! I've missed his reports.
Hi. What I am going to write has nothing to do with the blog post but it has a lot to do with anderson 360.
I am portuguese and I live in portugal but sometimes I watch anderson 360.
I say sometimes because the fellows are so biased , their journalism is so bad that sometimes I just can watch a few minutes and I change do Al Jazeera or BBC.
One example.
Wolf Blitzer interviewd vice president Dick Cheney january 2006.. It happens tought that in the anderson 360 , January 24 , in the piece of information about cheney interview the one who was interviewed actually was wolf Blitzer. CNN just did show one minute or 2 about the actual interview to Cheney and most of the time the one who had a voice was wolf blitzer.
Most of the time Blitzer did comment an interview CNN did not broadcast.
This is not journalism.
Instead of showing to the public an interview with the US vice president that they did.., cnn did broadcast the opinions of Blitzer about an interview CNN did not even bother to show.
Instead of showing the facts to the public , CNN does brainwash peoples minds with Blitzer opinions.
A few months ago Just before the elections CNN did broadcast a 2 hours series called : Broken Government : How the Right went wrong.
The program was unbelievable.
They wanted to make the point the right was wrong and evil.
Journalist code of ethics :
"(Journalists should) Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.".
Before watching CNN I believed in the freedom of the press.
No more.
CNN is a corporation whose objective is not to inform people . They have the objective of brainwashing people.
They are a cancer to the democracy because a democracy can only exist with informed people and a big corporation like CNN does not inform people , they manipulate peoples minds.
A democracy in wich peoples minds are manipulated by a few is not a democracy anymore.
Journalists are only accountable to themselves unlike the president of the US and other elected officials.
Click here to read a free republic article- CNN hires clinton controlled corporation
@observador-All of the US tv networks are owned by big corporations.
I don't think Blitzer even has opinions.
Free republic is an ultra right wing website and I can't take anything they say seriously because it is often proven to be false.
PS: Yes, I'm joking with that second statement. Thanks for stopping by.
Well, you know I watched the SOTU. Yelled a lot at the TV. Why did I miss the Mars thing? How did I miss the Mars thing?
Hey! 2 weeks without Announcer Dude...i'm now hoping he headed for Hollywood for a better deal! I don't want to think of poor announcer dude's kids!
One must never forget announcer dude's children. Do you think they're training to go into the family business? Maybe announcing birthday parties for practice? ;)
Thanks for your answer.
I wrote earlier that I lost confidence faith in the fairness of the media.
Actually western media has been waging war against bush and blair as if the were paid by Al Qaida.
The role of the media is to inform not to manipulate their minds.
In a interview to Tony Becky Anderson from CNN does ask him :
"vice president of iraq said it was an idiotic decision to invade iraq. What do you comment ? ".
It does happen Becky Anderson was wrong.
The president of Iraq did not said such thing.
He said it had been a mistake to place Iraq under ocupation , referibng to a UN decision of 2003 as well as disbanding the Iraqi army.
The media jumped into a wrong conclusion and attack the scapegoats, Blair and Bush.
" Reuters Misquoting Iraqi Vice President?
Jan 26 2007 2:27PM
http://sayanythingblog.com/index.php
Here’s a headline you’ll no doubt be seeing a lot of as the journalists lovingly bandy it about:
image
It’s not a good thing that an Iraqi VP is calling something America has done in Iraq idiotic, but I think it’s important to note that he’s probably not talking about the actual invasion of Iraq as Reuters suggests.
From the article:
DAVOS, Switzerland, Jan 25 (Reuters) - The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an “idiot decision” and Iraqi troops now need to secure Baghdad to ensure the country’s future, Vice-President Adel Abdul Mahdi said on Thursday.
“Iraq was put under occupation, which was an idiot decision,” Mahdi said at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Mahdi is talking about putting Iraq under occupation being an “idiot decision,” not necessarily invading. Which makes sense, given that Mahdi had been living outside of Iraq in exile from 1969 until the time of our invasion. Indeed, his political party (for whom he is a major player) supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Neither Mahdi nor his political cohorts are particularly pro-U.S., but saying that they opposed the toppling of Saddam is laughable.
Mahdi is probably thinking that it was idiotic for U.S. forces to disband the Iraqi army choosing instead to use U.S. troops to govern the nation in the aftermath of the invasion, which is why he’s talking about the American occupation as opposed to the American invasion. And he’s got a point in that, which is a much different thing from calling the invasion itself idiotic.
But that distinction won’t matter now that the press has already painted it’s picture of his comments. For millions of Americans, an Iraqi VP calling our invasion of Iraq idiotic will be the story of the day even though that’s not actually what happened.
Just another victory for objective journalism.".
The least objective media should have done was to question the itraqi vice president and not jump to conclusions , as Becky Anderson and reuters did.
To place Iraq under ocupation , and to Invade Iraq or topple Saddam is nort exactly the same thing and the media should have clarified the meaning of the sentence of the Vice President of Iraq instead of claiming iraq vice president had said something he actually had not said
The media ( Reuters, CNN ) has been waging a war against Bush and Blair as if they are paid by Bin Laden.
@Peter-I think it's disgusting to compare the media to terrorists. I can't really judge anything you've posted because you didn't give the link to the Reuters story or the transcript of the Becky Anderson interview. I don't even know who Becky Anderson is. In any regards, it's pretty laughable to say that the corporate media is waging a war on Bush and Blair. I mean, so far there's only network that's even brave enough to call the civil war a "civil war."
they are feeding terrorism. This is pretty obvious.
Why is the US demonized all over the world?
For millions americans are demonized?
Why? Because of their crimes ? No way.
One of the reasons is Because liberal media does keep attacking US president and its policies.
Just yesterday , CNN headline was : Licence to Kill.
The story was about the US troops that had been authorized to go after iranians in Iraq.
World is larger than the US and many attacks against bush (and Blair) only gve ammunition to the terrorists.
It is not by chance the most hated leaders in the world ( bush and blair ) are leaders of countries where there is " free" press that does keep atacking such leaders.
Putin is not hated worldwide .
Because in Russia there is no media atacking their president 24 hours a day.
Here is Becky Anderson , a CNN anchor.
Click here to see who is becky anderson
When it comes to the spin of the vice president of iraq words there are some news online.
Bellow you have the full reuters article.
what vice president said was : To place iraq under ocupation ( something un did after US invasion ) was an idiotic decision.
The media misquoted him and claimed that he had said that it had been idiotic to invade in the first place.
That is not what he said.
DAVOS-U.S. invasion was "idiot decision"-Iraq vice president
25 Jan 2007 13:11:04 GMT
Source: Reuters
Printable view | Email this article | RSS XML [-] Text [+]
Background
Iraq in turmoil
More
By Stella Dawson
DAVOS, Switzerland, Jan 25 (Reuters) - The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an "idiot decision" and Iraqi troops now need to secure Baghdad to ensure the country's future, Vice-President Adel Abdul Mahdi said on Thursday.
"Iraq was put under occupation, which was an idiot decision," Mahdi said at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Mahdi said the Iraqi government planned to bring troops in to Baghdad from surrounding areas and said it was "a technical question" for the United States to decide whether to deploy more soldiers.
President George W. Bush plans to send another 21,500 troops to Iraq, a move widely criticised in the United States. On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted against the decision, which is due to go before the Senate next week.
"If we can win this war in Baghdad then I think we can change the course of events," Mahdi told a panel on the state of affairs in Iraq.
"As Iraqis, we think we need more (Iraqi) troops in Baghdad, and we are calling for some regiments to come from other parts of the country," he said.
Mahdi's party, the powerful Shi'ite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, was one of the exiled opposition parties consulted by Washington as it planned the invasion.
Its leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim is a key figure behind the U.S.-backed national unity government.
MORE CHAOS?
Some commentators are concerned that without the support of U.S. troops in Iraq, the already boiling sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shi'ites could break out into ever greater killing sprees.
Adnan Pachachi, a member of Iraq's parliament and a former acting speaker, said that if the United States could not stay in Iraq, other troops should be drafted in. "If because of domestic pressure in the United States, the U.S. feels it is not possible to continue undertaking this burden, then I think we should consider going to the United Nations and having an international force," said Pachachi.
"This is a last resort really, otherwise there would be total chaos in the country."
Bush, who this week pleaded for the United States to give his new Iraq plan a chance, does not have to abide by a Senate resolution if legislators vote against sending more troops. ".
The question of the media and political power is a question of division of powers.
There is the judiciary.., the executive power , and the legislative power.
Each power has its own role.
There is a fourth power, the media : The media has the role to inform people, not to manipulate people.
nowadays CNN and others are messing with political power.
They manipulate peoples minds.., twist events.., so people do elect certain parties.
Instead of being the people to decide who should govern them.., the guys that decide are the media barons.
This is not right.
This is how russia putin works.
Media does manipulate people and people vote in the ones media want them to vote.
This is the end of the democracy.
Instead of being the people to decide..,the ones who decide are a small click of aristrocrats that tell people what the people should think.
First of all, there is no such thing as the "liberal media." Read David Brock or Eric Alterman to find how that all got started. In the US television news is owned by a few large corporations-all of which benefit financially from conservative policies, such as deregulation. The head of Viacom even admitted before the 2004 election that he would be voting for Bush because Bush policies were good for the company. General Electric is an arms dealer and is making money off this war. To think that they're letting their news stations (NBC, MSNBC) slant their coverage is ridiculous because it would hurt their bottom line.
The US is hated world wide because of our policies. Do you not remember all the good will that came our way after 9-11? We were not hated then as we are now and it's not the media that's changed.
It is not by chance the most hated leaders in the world ( bush and blair ) are leaders of countries where there is " free" press that does keep atacking such leaders.
Putin is not hated worldwide .
Because in Russia there is no media atacking their president 24 hours a day.
I'm sorry, are you actually advocating against a free press? You do realize that's one of the foundations of our democracy, right? Perhaps you don't want to live in a democracy. Also, Putin didn't start a war for no reason. If he did he'd be hated too.
[i]I'm sorry, are you actually advocating against a free press? You do realize that's one of the foundations of our democracy, right? Perhaps you don't want to live in a democracy.[/i]
I believe in a free press , a press unbiased .
CNN is like Putin media.
Both putin media want to advance their own political agendas.
They do not report . They manipulate.
Democracy needs a free , unbiased media. Thats why I am against the kind of media that does manipulate peoples minds.
It does not make sense for CNN to advocate a free press since they do exactly like putin does.
They use freedom in order to manipulate peoples minds and brainwash them.
Also, Putin didn't start a war for no reason. If he did he'd be hated too.
That sentence make my point.
Putin did their 9/11.
Putin actually blown up buildings in Moscow back in 1999 in order to justify the invasion of chechnya.
But You had no idea of such facts..
Why ?
Because as I said..., media controls peoples minds.
What people really do does not matter.
How media portray people does matter.
While in the US powerfull networks attack Bush policies 24 hours , 7 days a week.., in Russia no media dares to attack Putin therefore you have no idea what Putin did.
That prooves my point :
Bush is not hated because of his crimes.
Bush is hated because of the ongoing campaign against him in the media.
Look of what Putin did but you had no idea , since Putin controls the media
Check here the events of 99 in wich Putin blow up buildings in moscow to justify his war
You had no notion of those events.
This does proove my point : Human beings are easily manipulated by the media and despite the fact that putin is 1000 worse than bush people do not have such idea , because the media spares putin and demonizes Bush.
This is also the reason why I am against CNN and I think they are the cancer of democracy.
They do convince people that some are devil and others are saints.
As far as CNN is concerned they do not dare to report the moscow bombings of 1999 . Why ? Because They do fear Putin.
CNN correspondents know full well if they did report events in Chechnya..., they know full well that if they start criticizing Putin they correspondents would be expelled from Moscow.
Just a few months ago a Russian journalist was murdered. Between 2000 and 2006 CNN did not a single interview to her.
(anna politskaya).
Just search for anna politskaya in the CNN website and you will see how many interviews CNN did to her despite the fact she was a respected Russian Journalist, one of the few that wrote about chechnya, and the human right abuses that take place there.
Why CNN did not interview anna politskaya ?
Because they fear Putin, they fear the consequences of reporting human rights abuses in chechnya.
CNN only does report errors done by BUSH .
When it comes to Putin not once did CNN dare to do a report about moscow bombings in 1999 , by instance.
CNN does use the freedom they have in the west in order to attack western leaders ( namely bush ).
When it comes to Putin you will not find a single CNN interview with anna politskaya neither you will find a single report about moscow bombings in 1999.
CNN condones totalitarian regimes such as the chinese regime or the russian regime .
In european CNN I have never seen programs denouncing misdeeds of such regimes.
At the same time they demonize democratic leaders such as Bush and Blair.
CNN role in the global arena is very negative .
It does poison the democracies while it does ignore the crimes of the totalitarian regimes.
This is so much so that you had no idea of the crimes Putin is acused.
(With good reason since russian secrets agents were caught placing explosives in apartment buildings back in 1999 . Putin was PM at the time ).
As I wrote this sentence you wrote shows how much you believe in the media
Also, Putin didn't start a war for no reason. If he did he'd be hated too.
No way.
He did start a war but since media does not report about him , you got convinced Putin did no crimes . You got no idea what Putin did.
Media controls your mind , and only a few can see beyond what media does want you to believe
You do realize that's one of the foundations of our democracy, right? Perhaps you don't want to live in a democracy
I believe in a democracy.
I do not believe in a regime in wich anderson cooper and wolf Blitzer tell me what I should think 24 hours a day.
Just a few days ago a CNN news bulletin started with the sentence : License to kill for the US troops.
This is not reporting.
This is manipulating peoples minds.
Exactly because I do believe in democracy I believe people have the right to unbiased media, media that does report with fairness.
I do not believe in a regime in wich a few does brainwash the minds of millions.
(As cnn does)
you dont even are aware of the manipulation cnn does.
CNN Headline :
"Thousands march in washington and demand the end of iraq war now ".
Actually people dont demand the end of the war.
They demand the withdrawal of the US troops wich is a completely diferent thing.
Saying people demand the end of the war gives the illusion that some want peace and others want war wich is far from the truth.
Actually when US troops did withdraw from Balad war did increase , and more people get killed.
One thing is the presence of US troops other the iraq war.
The media does create in peoples minds illusions that do have litle connection with actual events.
Click here to see what did happen when US troops withdraw from Balad. The war in the town got worse
People who are against the war in iraq should support the draft and the deployment of more US troops to iraq
Actually if you want to compare the media in Russia to some in the US there is one network that makes a good comparison: Fox News.
Also, I did know about the bombings you referenced (though it has not been proved that Putin was behind them) and you know where I heard the story and theory of Putin's involvement reported? CNN.
"License to Kill" is sensational sure, but how is it inaccurate. Obviously the troops haven't been given a literal license, but they have been given the okay to kill Iranian agents now. I don't see the problem.
Also, what exactly is CNN's agenda? A news agency isn't going to report stories simply to make the president look bad (as you allege). What do they get out of it?
you know where I heard the story and theory of Putin's involvement reported? CNN.
You claim CNN does report about russia.
Just chack anna politskaya in the CNN website and you will see how many interviews CNN did to her.
0.
Between 2001 and 2006 (october) CNN had 3 references to Anna Politskaya, someone who did dozens of trips to chechnya and someone who did wrote dozens of articles about chechnya.
Click here to see how many times cnn did report about anna
To claim as you do that CNN does report in a balanced way about russia makes no sense.
Treshpaskin is a former KGB coronel that has claimed putin is behind the 99 bombings.
The council of europe condemned treshpaskin prison.
How many times does CNN talk about treshpaskin ?
Click here to see how many times CNN talked about treshpaskin case
Click here to see treshpaskin dossier that CNN did not talk about
As you can see CNN totally ignores treshpaskin case , despite the fact that he is a former KGB coronel and a Lawyer.
CNN Has an agenda ? ( You ask )
On one hand CNN does ignore some important issues. On the other hand it does publicize others.
The very day hillary Clinton did announce she was running to the presidence , Insight , a CNN daily program was dedicated to her .
Today Larry King Show did interview terry mccauliffe , a guy I had never heard about and who is running her campaign.
The CNN fellows know how to advance their agenda.
Right now in CNN images of an " anti war " demonstration.
They know how to advance their agenda.
You dont watch the news. You watch the news television networks choose to broadcast , wich a completely diferent thing.
If you search for " death toll in Iraq " you can find 485 news
If you search Death toll in chechnya you got 0 news.
This is what I call brainwashing .
People think what media does want them to think.
I don't know exactly what you want me to say. CNN US is a US television network that caters to their primarily US audience. Sure they have international news too, but they are covering news from a US point of view. To think that Russia is going to get the same kind of coverage as domestic politics just goes to show you don't understand the news business. Most Americans don't want to see news about Russia and therefore they're not going to show it. CNN is a corporation. Their goal is to make money. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
So CNN shouldn't cover the anti-war demonstrations? That is news. That is what happened. To chose to not cover it would be exhibiting an agenda. Your arguments make no sense to me.
CNN US is a US television network that caters to their primarily US audience.
No way.
From wikipedia:
CNN International, often referred to as just CNN../.../ is an English language television network that predominantly carries news../.../
It is available in most of the world, distributed via satellite and cable. Its international reach is more than 200 million households and hotel rooms in over 200 countries.
I live in portugal and I watch CNN.
People in hong kong can also watch cnn.
CNN international is a global news network.
quote from CNN website
CNN.COM
The international edition of CNN.com is constantly updated to bring the top news stories from around the world. It is produced by dedicated staff in London and Hong Kong, working with colleagues at CNN's world headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, and with bureaus worldwide. CNN.com relies heavily on CNN's global team of almost 4,000 news professionals.".
end of quote
Therefore when CNN does not cover certain subjects such fact has nothing to do with US audiences for the simple fact that there is CNN US and CNN international , and CNN in spanish and Arabic.
Actually just recently cnn made 5 programs from russia during a whollle week.
"Putin: Power & Politics" packages air throughout the week on CNN, including on Your World Today (Monday to Friday, 4 to 8 p.m., CET.)
Click here to watch cnn program Putin power and politics
In that program they did not dare to raise the treshpaskin issue.
Therefore they refrain to cover certain issues not because CNN is a US network as you claim , but for other reasons.
They did report from and about Russia but they did not show certain issues.
And did you know the british ambassador has been persecuted for months by the a Putin youth Movement ?
You did not.
Neither CNN did cover the issue in the program putin power and politics ( 5 programs during a wholle week ).
Click here to see a news article about thepersecution of the british ambassador in Moscow
When Becky Anderson made the program Putin , Power and Politics she did not raise the issue .
That youth group called NASHI even does post videos on the web showing them persecuting , harrassing the British ambassador.
Despite that CNN did not raise the issue in the program putin power and politics .
Why ?
Because as I said , they need to cover Russia.., and they know full well if they start making too many questions.., Putin would throw the CNN correspondent out of Russia.
So CNN does not ask hard questions when it comes to russia.
Same applies to china.
CNN does like to give the image it is critical to power , they want people to believe they are a whistleblower.., but that is just an image.
CNN does not have the guts to confront totalitarian powers such as the Russian Power.., or Chinese.., since they knew they would get a beating.
The only world leaders CNN does dare criticize is Blair.., Bush.., leaders they know that have no power to punch CNN hard.
Conclusion : That is the reason I claim CNN has been doing damage to democracies since it just does criticize leaders of democratic countries.
When it comes to leaders of totalitarian countries CNN does fear them and does not cover events that do portray such leaders in a bad light.
This has nothing to do with audiences . This has got to do with policies.
Okay, I didn't read all of that because you know what? We're talking about two different networks. The US doesn't carry CNNI except in special circumstances (tsunami). I can't comment on something that I don't even have access to.
Post a Comment
<< Home