[ambush]

Political showdowns, car crashes, dramatic rescues???

Look at the guy's screen too.. there's like a firestorm on his screen.

I think I lost the little respect I had for CNN

[chris v]

They've really dumbed down in a race to the bottom, lately. Headline News on TV is even worse.

[mojo2]

There are some posters here who would say that's good because it is giving the people just what they want. And that's all that matters.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by mojo2

There are some posters here who would say that's good because it is giving the people just what they want. And that's all that matters.

I read CNN online every day. Because there's nothing better out there.

And I don't like CNN either, but I have to read something, because I don't watch TV, or get the newspaper.

NONE of it gives me what I want. (Not even CNN)

I want unbiased news free of political slant, free of opinions passed off as news, free of selectivity, and free of fluff.

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

Also, is it too much to ask that stuff not be repeated ad nauseam as it is on CNN? I read many stories that are essentially the exact same story with a line added at the end and a different headline. And then you get ones where the story repeats itself in the same story!

EDIT: Ok, so I read Greek online newspapers, too. That's still not objective, but reporting on the U.S. is more objective than it is over here.

[ambush]

Person_man, ever heard of BBC America?

Anyway, it gives you a pretty good idea of CNN's seriousness.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

I think that ad targets people like Pachead.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Person Man

I want unbiased news free of political slant, free of opinions passed off as news, free of selectivity, and free of fluff.

I'm right there with you. Do you think there's enough of a viewership out there to warrant such a program/station? Or would everyone else continue to sacrifice integrity for the sensationalism on the other news stations?

[Cody Dawg]

Yes, CNN has commercialized itself. It's a shadow of what it could be.

That is evidenced by the women that they hire to cover the news. Sometimes they can't even read the teleprompter and end up laughing and acting silly. They have more make-up and cosmetics on that the average stripper - and sometimes dress like they just finished the night before at the local strip club.

Their new president is to blame, to be honest. (Maybe to get the job the news anchors are sleeping with him? They all have similar features and a cookie cutter look to them...makes sense that he'd go for type. )

CNN is guilty of manipulating the facts to portray their own political ideologies also - almost as bad as the New York Times.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

I'm right there with you. Do you think there's enough of a viewership out there to warrant such a program/station? Or would everyone else continue to sacrifice integrity for the sensationalism on the other news stations?

People are funny. They might SAY they want straight news but when the ratings come it's the flashy guys who win out. And as they say, money talks and ...

The PBS NewsHour (formerly, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer) should be the highest rated news show in the land. But it isn't. So much for the idea that people want unflavored news.

Not to doubt anyone here who wants good honest objective news. I believe you. I just doubt the majority of people who SAY they do.

Survey says yes. ratings say, no.

[Landos Mustache]

CNN website isn't bad. The TV programming is OK. Fox scares me, it always reminds me of that clip from the simpsons where bart watches "action news" for the trill of it.

I catch parts of it when I watch a US channel and it honestly worries me... it is like Hard Copy under the guise of real news.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The PBS NewsHour (formerly, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer) should be the highest rated news show in the land. But it isn't. So much for the idea that people want unflavored news.

Yeah, I've heard that PBS is usually pretty good about remaining objective. I'll stick to getting my news from Colbert. At least he realizes that everything in the 'news' is ridiculous and treats it as such.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Yeah, I've heard that PBS is usually pretty good about remaining objective. I'll stick to getting my news from Colbert. At least he realizes that everything in the 'news' is ridiculous and treats it as such.

I hope you can still say that after August 22nd.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I hope you can still say that after August 22nd.

I said 'news' as in what the mainstream goes after much of the time. I'm not denying that there is turmoil and important happenings in other parts of the world.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

CNN website isn't bad. The TV programming is OK. Fox scares me, it always reminds me of that clip from the simpsons where bart watches "action news" for the trill of it.

I catch parts of it when I watch a US channel and it honestly worries me... it is like Hard Copy under the guise of real news.

I always get the impression when watching CNN that when the news doesn't easily fit their agenda they grit their teeth or speed up or say as little as they can about the offending news before going back to beating their usual drum.

It's like their attitude is 'Well, THIS isn't the kind of news we approve of so we'll give it as little time and emphasis as we can.'

[wvx]

I read CNN online for news and that's about it. Fox, CNN, and MSNBC are all pretty lame IMHO. Well, actually I just have CNN in Newsfire (a feed reader) and skim headlines.

[Shaddim]

"RedneckNN"? Well, it's plain to see that the extreme Left Socialists have their own bigots.

I always thought that CNN was for spooks and camel-jockeys.

(just proving a point. No, I'm not racist.)

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I always get the impression when watching CNN that when the news doesn't easily fit their agenda they grit their teeth or speed up or say as little as they can about the offending news before going back to beating their usual drum.

It's like their attitude is 'Well, THIS isn't the kind of news we approve of so we'll give it as little time and emphasis as we can.'

I also feel the same with the TV show but not the website. Some of the reporters are very one sided and unprofessional.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

I also feel the same with the TV show but not the website. Some of the reporters are very one sided and unprofessional.

Yes, I usually have little problem with the online content. USUALLY. There are two occasions that come to mind but I can't recall the specifics. I tend to forget most transgressions.

Oh, by the way, I believe Cody Dawg used to manage the content on the CNN website. Please correct me if I got that wrong, Cody Dawg.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Oh, by the way, I believe Cody Dawg used to manage the content on the CNN website. Please correct me if I got that wrong, Cody Dawg.

I wouldn't mind CNN so much if their stories didn't repeat themselves so much.

Example (very simplified, but enough to Illustrate)

FOX JUMPS OVER DOG.

By X

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. The dog was lazy because he was diabetic. Diabetes affects millions of dogs all over the world.



then, two hours later.

DOG JUMPED OVER BY FOX

By X

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. The dog was lazy because he was diabetic. Diabetes affects millions of dogs all over the world. But they get different diabetes from humans.

The second story is the same as the first, but with one new sentence at the end.

Or, you get multiple stories on the same topic, but when you read them, it's obvious that to write the second one they used cut and paste on the first one to write parts of it.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

"RedneckNN"? Well, it's plain to see that the extreme Left Socialists have their own bigots.

I always thought that CNN was for spooks and camel-jockeys.

(just proving a point. No, I'm not racist.)

Did somebody hurted your feelers?

[Chuckit]

Don't blame CNN. Blame Fox for making it necessary in order to compete.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by chris v

Did somebody hurted your feelers?

No, just having fun with the bigots.

and waiting to see which asshat would reply first with that type of comment.

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Don't blame CNN. Blame Fox for making it necessary in order to compete.

Blame the consumer for getting what it wants.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

No, just having fun with the bigots.

and waiting to see which asshat would reply first with that type of comment.

I'm honored and privileged.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

Blame the consumer for getting what it wants.

There it is.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

Blame the consumer for getting what it wants.

No, I blame the news media for catering to the lowest common denominator. Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to do it. I could become a gay hooker and "blame the johns for getting what they want," but I choose not to.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

No, I blame the news media for catering to the lowest common denominator. Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to do it. I could become a gay hooker and "blame the johns for getting what they want," but I choose not to.

Sensationalism = wide viewership, people watching = ads, more ads = cha-ching!

They have simply found the best way to make money is through that type of reporting.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Sensationalism = wide viewership, people watching = ads, more ads = cha-ching!

They have simply found the best way to make money is through that type of reporting.

You can restate it all the different ways you like. The fact that you can get more viewers by being sensationalistic and unethical doesn't excuse it.

[Love Calm Quiet]

Another vote for BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/default.stm

They'll cover perspectives on lay/business aspects of tech that CNN never gets around to.

[hey!_Zeus]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

"RedneckNN"? Well, it's plain to see that the extreme Left Socialists have their own bigots.

I always thought that CNN was for spooks and camel-jockeys.

(just proving a point. No, I'm not racist.)

Yar so. Give it up. Everyone is racist so lying makes you even more so.

[chris v]

Television is not in the business of delivering content to its viewers. It is in the business of delivering viewers to its advertisers.

If you think you, the individual, is television's "customer," think again. The customer is the advertiser, and the advertiser will take its work to the station with the most viewers. What you see on the telly is the result of relatively unfiltered capitalism. I'm not going to debate the righteousness, or lack thereof, of that system, but if you like it, fine. If you don't, work for change. But complaining about content isn't going to help. You're not the people the networks are listening to.

[Chuckit]

Apple doesn't listen to me either, but that doesn't stop me talking about their products.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Person Man

I wouldn't mind CNN so much if their stories didn't repeat themselves so much.

Example (very simplified, but enough to Illustrate)

FOX JUMPS OVER DOG.

By X

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. The dog was lazy because he was diabetic. Diabetes affects millions of dogs all over the world.



then, two hours later.

DOG JUMPED OVER BY FOX

By X

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. The dog was lazy because he was diabetic. Diabetes affects millions of dogs all over the world. But they get different diabetes from humans.

The second story is the same as the first, but with one new sentence at the end.

Or, you get multiple stories on the same topic, but when you read them, it's obvious that to write the second one they used cut and paste on the first one to write parts of it.

There's an understandable reason for that.

They have to refresh the news constantly to keep people from tuning out until the news actually changes. They re-write it throughout the day and night using the same facts on hand.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by mojo2

There's an understandable reason for that.

They have to refresh the news constantly to keep people from tuning out until the news actually changes. They re-write it throughout the day and night using the same facts on hand.

Yes, but it is annoying to come back to a story about 9 hours later and find nothing more of substance has been added.

[imitchellg5]

The movie on the lappie's screen is Star Wars Episode III. I like redneck jokes. There should be a redneck jokes thread. But I understand rednecks. Nothing better than a good truck at your side.

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by Person Man

I read CNN online every day. Because there's nothing better out there.

http://www.nytimes.com/

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

http://www.nytimes.com/

Nah.

I like this better.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by chris v

Television is not in the business of delivering content to its viewers. It is in the business of delivering viewers to its advertisers.

If you think you, the individual, is television's "customer," think again. The customer is the advertiser, and the advertiser will take its work to the station with the most viewers. What you see on the telly is the result of relatively unfiltered capitalism. I'm not going to debate the righteousness, or lack thereof, of that system, but if you like it, fine. If you don't, work for change. But complaining about content isn't going to help. You're not the people the networks are listening to.

True.

Edw. R. Murrow was lucky to have come around at a time when his idea of news was so much better than some of the entertainment on the network and that he had a patron at CBS, Wm Paley who was committed to news that he enjoyed what may have been the last vestiges of the "content is king" era...if it even existed at THAT point in time.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

"RedneckNN"? Well, it's plain to see that the extreme Left Socialists have their own bigots.

I always thought that CNN was for spooks and camel-jockeys.

(just proving a point. No, I'm not racist.)

I've tried to make said point for ages. It goes over their heads.

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Nah.

I like this better.

That's Russian, isn't it? Are you Russian?

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

That's Russian, isn't it? Are you Russian?

Greek.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I've tried to make said point for ages. It goes over their heads.

You know, it's funny. I'm a (mostly) white southerner, and I've never found myself the least bit offended or insulted by the word 'redneck.' Most of the country folk (I am a city-slicker after all, but I'm out inthe sticks all the time) would laugh at the idea, as well. It seems to me (I'm projecting, here) that you're trying to be politically correct.

Cracker, honky and to a lesser extent, hillbilly might offend, if used in an offensive context. But it's plenty easy to use about any word in an offensive context.

People are just all too ready to get their feelings hurt, these days. I've been in a situation recently where a Mexican was offended by the use of 'Mexican' and would have preferred to have been referred to as 'chicano' or 'latino.' How can referring to someone's nationality be pejorative? I don't get that.

[hey!_Zeus]

Originally Posted by chris v

You know, it's funny. I'm a (mostly) white southerner, and I've never found myself the least bit offended or insulted by the word 'redneck.' Most of the country folk (I am a city-slicker after all, but I'm out inthe sticks all the time) would laugh at the idea, as well. It seems to me (I'm projecting, here) that you're trying to be politically correct.

Cracker, honky and to a lesser extent, hillbilly might offend, if used in an offensive context. But it's plenty easy to use about any word in an offensive context.

People are just all too ready to get their feelings hurt, these days. I've been in a situation recently where a Mexican was offended by the use of 'Mexican' and would have preferred to have been referred to as 'chicano' or 'latino.' How can referring to someone's nationality be pejorative? I don't get that.

Kilbey/Railrodent said I was a racist bigot cuz I called Mexicans Mexicans of which he is one. He took offense to that. Talk about self-hatred.

[n8236]

CNN & Fox News = biased newscast.

[Spliffdaddy]

Rednecks are the most conservative people on Earth. You won't catch them watching anything except FOX. CNN is for elitist artsy liberal Prius-driving peacenik treehuggers.

Besides, FOX is #1 - all the rest have lost viewership.

The south's gonna rise again. You heard it here first.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by hey!_Zeus

Kilbey/Railrodent said I was a racist bigot cuz I called Mexicans Mexicans of which he is one. He took offense to that. Talk about self-hatred.

Lie.

You said "What the hell has Mexico and Mexicans evar done."

But then you've never really been known for being an honest person.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I hope you can still say that after August 22nd.

Whatever happened to that August 22nd?

[JoshuaZ]

theres always "the onion."

MacNN Forums

At least my fake news comes out and says its fake news.

[porieux]

...

[porieux]

...