CNN credibility in question

[Yahoshua]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/06/return_of_the_clinton_news_net.html

[August]

So i other words the Clintons are going to control CNN opinion polls ahead of Hillarys run for the oval office?

And they say the Republicans are crooked. :roll:

[Yahoshua]

So in other words the Clintons are going to control CNN opinion polls ahead of Hillarys run for the oval office?

And they say the Republicans are crooked. :roll:

Nowadays, who isn't crooked?

[FIREWALL]

If the public can't or won't look at the information available to them today they deserve what they get and what happens to them.

[The Avon Lady]

I agree with all of the above opinions. Other than the specifics, this is not news. And what's worse are almost all of the major newswire services that feed the mass media.

We've had these chats before. :yep:

[P_Funk]

If the public can't or won't look at the information available to them today they deserve what they get and what happens to them. Thats the basic thing isn't it. I mean CNN or Fox News or The Wall Street Journal or any other publication is suspect to many of us. And the vast majority of people around here with strong opinions don't base them on the flimsy propoganda that we go ton most networks, or the shallow coverage of events.

The sad fact is that most people base their vote on the last speech any candidate gives. For many people "tax cut" is more than enough. The lack of political sophistication is the main cause for most of the run away idiocy we have in our democracies. I mean Bush in 2000 I can understand. But the real stupidity comes from the fact that Bush had a negative approval rating in '04 and still he won. Reflexive voting.

If people are too lazy or stupid to be conscious citizens and to vote with intelligence, or hell even vote to begin with (Canada had a poor ~30% turn out last time) then whatever bad stuff happens we deserve.

When I say this tts not just a left wing diatribe, but a universal thing. I don't care if you vote for my preferred candidate. I still think you an a$$hole if you do it for anything other than intelligent reasons.

[The Avon Lady]

I mean CNN or Fox News or The Wall Street Journal
Didn't take long to slip in the slant, did it? :nope:

[P_Funk]

[quote=FIREWALL]I mean CNN or Fox News or The Wall Street Journal Didn't take long to slip in the slant, did it? :nope:
Oh so you don't think that Fox News is biased? Whatever AL. I already said that it wasn't about left or right. But feel free to make it into another ideological pissing contest if you prefer.

Until now this was a consensus thread.

[The Avon Lady]

[quote=FIREWALL]I mean CNN or Fox News or The Wall Street Journal Didn't take long to slip in the slant, did it? :nope:
Oh so you don't think that Fox News is biased?
I didn't say that. Read carefully.
I already said that it wasn't about left or right.
That's different.
Until now this was a consensus thread.
Back on track we go!

[Yahoshua]

oooh, a record time of 2:30 in full consensus!!


You two, fight to the death.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/popcorn-1.gif

[P_Funk]

oooh, a record time of 2:30 in full consensus!!


You two, fight to the death.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/popcorn-1.gif
I never wanted to fight to the death. Bloody hell I think AL just wanted to snipe at me. Even if she has a legitimate point there are times to just shut up and skip that one. I do it all the time, believe it or not.

I thought though that it was fine to mention a right wing news source next to a newly decalred left wing one (CNN for Hillary right?) to keep it balanced sounding. But whatever.

On topic?

[PeriscopeDepth]

OMG OMG news networks are biased??!! It's almost like profits are more important to them (which they make by focusing on a particular audience) than reporting legitimate news stories.

PD

[P_Funk]

The sad bit is that it wasn't always like that, PD. I mean they actually covered the Vietnam war in a negative light back in the day. Now you get those tacky "Heroes" features.

Hell, you can almost blame every bad turn in North American culture on the 80s.

[PeriscopeDepth]

The sad bit is that it wasn't always like that, PD. I mean they actually covered the Vietnam war in a negative light back in the day. Now you get those tacky "Heroes" features.

Hell, you can almost blame every bad turn in North American culture on the 80s.
You're saying current news networks don't cover Iraq in a negative light? Some certainly do.

I'm not saying that any news channel carries the truth more than any other. They just market to different people. You can hear whatever news you prefer by changing the channel. The media as a responsible service doesn't exist anymore for the most part.

PD

[P_Funk]

You're saying current news networks don't cover Iraq in a negative light? Some certainly do.
Now that its fashionable. But thats just in a general sense. The real details of the war that were brought out in the press in Vietnam like the brutality on the ground and the pictures of dead soldiers or even the questions about the conduct of some soldiers is not really there. The political war is being criticised but its still mostly "ooh rah for the troops" stuff.

[The Avon Lady]

You're saying current news networks don't cover Iraq in a negative light? Some certainly do.
Now that its fashionable. But thats just in a general sense. The real details of the war that were brought out in the press in Vietnam like the brutality on the ground and the pictures of dead soldiers or even the questions about the conduct of some soldiers is not really there. The political war is being criticised but its still mostly "ooh rah for the troops" stuff.
Fully disagree.

"Grim milestone" reports began with the 1000th casualty.

As for Vietnam, the Allies may very well have lost WWII with the same kind of anti-war press. Read, for example, Television Coverage Of The Vietnam War And Its Implications For Future Conflicts (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/HCD.htm). All Walter Cronkite needed to do was to bang the last nail into the coffin (http://newsbusters.org/node/12893).

The coverage has been worse in Iraq, not since day 1, but from shortly after Saddam's topple.

Keep in mind that, to begin with, I disagree with the stated goal of the current war in Iraq to win hearts and minds.

[P_Funk]

Thesis Statement: From the perspective of the U.S.
Military , television coverage of the Vietnam War had a
detrimental impact on the conduct of that war; policies on
television coverage of future conflicts should be revised so
as to not repeat past mistakes. I think that says it all.

[The Avon Lady]

Thesis Statement: From the perspective of the U.S.
Military , television coverage of the Vietnam War had a
detrimental impact on the conduct of that war; policies on
television coverage of future conflicts should be revised so
as to not repeat past mistakes. I think that says it all.
Thank you, Mr. Neutrality. :p

I think that's an accurate analysis. The military makes those now and then and once in a blue moon. Shocking to believe, I'm sure.................. :roll:

[P_Funk]

Thesis Statement: From the perspective of the U.S.
Military , television coverage of the Vietnam War had a
detrimental impact on the conduct of that war; policies on
television coverage of future conflicts should be revised so
as to not repeat past mistakes. I think that says it all. Thank you, Mr. Neutrality. :p

I think that's an accurate analysis. The military makes those now and then and once in a blue moon. Shocking to believe, I'm sure.................. :roll: Well of course the military is going to say that. Whats dangerous is the assertion that whats good for the military is always the same as for the common good.

More from the analysis.
"You know you never defeated us on the
battlefield," said the American colonel.
The North Vietnamese colonel pondered
this remark a moment. "That may be so,"
he replied, "but it is also irrelavent."
Conversation in Hanoi, April 19751
This project began with the question, "How could a
country win all the battles, and yet still lose the war?"
How could a country which is as rich and powerful as our
own, superior in every measurable category of military
strength, emerge as the loser with one of the world's
smallest and poorest countries? Why are our greatest
victories remembered as defeats? Why would a Congress that
approved the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964 with only two
dissenting votes turn its back on its South Vietnamese ally
when the North Vietnamese launched a full-scale conventional
invasion only eight years later?
In seeking answers to these questions it became readily
apparent that the American defense of South Vietnam was
brought to its unhappy conclusion not by a failure of
American arms, but rather by a failure of American will.
Well it almost assumes that the American Public is subserviant to the Military and political leadership. Almost like what they think doesn't matter.:hmm: Like when they realised what was happening that their awareness caused them to assert a point of view that didn't agree with the assigned foreign policy. As if the will of the public wanted the war to not be won because they didn't want the war at all. Heavens. It was the pinko-commie media's fault for informing people in a graphic way so that they actually understood what it meant.

Its too bad that people didn't stay delusional about it all. I mean read this travesty.
Surveys abound which document the shift of national
sentiment from strongly supportive of the war effort to the
point where 65% of the American public believed that U.S.
involvement in Vietnam was not just a mistake, but
"immoral."
The morality of war? What business does a nation of democratic citizens have asking that question.

I think this report is all about perception. The unending need to explain why America lost in a way that blames somebody and to never again let people actually think about it. Its gotta stay "Over there".

[August]

Well of course the military is going to say that. Whats dangerous is the assertion that whats good for the military is always the same as for the common good.

When the military complains about things like that it's because the ramifications for them go well beyond nebulous political debates. They are talking about giving aid and comfort to the enemy that keeps them fighting longer and harder resulting in higher casualties for our troops.

[The Avon Lady]

When the military complains about things like that it's because the ramifications for them go well beyond nebulous political debates. They are talking about giving aid and comfort to the enemy that keeps them fighting longer and harder resulting in higher casualties for our troops.
I can honestly say that I personally do not recall a day and age when this was elementary. :cry:

[Heibges]

In regards to the topic of CNN, you just have to look at the website and you realize something is wrong over there. They have the worst website of any of the other news outlets including the BBC.

If they don't care about how they present themselves to the public, what do they care about.

The one thing I don't like about Fox News is that they have that disgraced officer Oliver North making commentary. He violated his sworn oath to the constitution, so if he had honor he would have eaten a bullet, rather than feel the need to spout off his two cents.

[Tchocky]

When the military complains about things like that it's because the ramifications for them go well beyond nebulous political debates. They are talking about giving aid and comfort to the enemy that keeps them fighting longer and harder resulting in higher casualties for our troops.

Semi-agreed, there's some information that journalists should not report. but what is so harmful about film of bodies being flown home? I don't understand that ban.

Old news (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1130-07.htm), but at least it's all to keep aid and comfort from the enemy..

[Heibges]

You're saying current news networks don't cover Iraq in a negative light? Some certainly do.
Now that its fashionable. But thats just in a general sense. The real details of the war that were brought out in the press in Vietnam like the brutality on the ground and the pictures of dead soldiers or even the questions about the conduct of some soldiers is not really there. The political war is being criticised but its still mostly "ooh rah for the troops" stuff.
Fully disagree.

"Grim milestone" reports began with the 1000th casualty.

As for Vietnam, the Allies may very well have lost WWII with the same kind of anti-war press. Read, for example, Television Coverage Of The Vietnam War And Its Implications For Future Conflicts (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/HCD.htm). All Walter Cronkite needed to do was to bang the last nail into the coffin (http://newsbusters.org/node/12893).

The coverage has been worse in Iraq, not since day 1, but from shortly after Saddam's topple.

Keep in mind that, to begin with, I disagree with the stated goal of the current war in Iraq to win hearts and minds.

I would say some of the footage in Victory at Sea and just newsreels folks saw during WWII were as graphic as anything they saw in Vietnam.

I believe what drove the last nail in the coffin in Vietnam was when spoiled middleclass white kids started getting drafted.

I agree with AL, that since there is not a military manual titled FM-214 Winning the Hearts and Minds, this is not and cannot be our military's purpose in iraq.

[Heibges]

When the military complains about things like that it's because the ramifications for them go well beyond nebulous political debates. They are talking about giving aid and comfort to the enemy that keeps them fighting longer and harder resulting in higher casualties for our troops.
I can honestly say that I personally do not recall a day and age when this was elementary. :cry:

True. In WWII there was open debate over how the war should be handled, and whether it should be fought to the bitter end. And look at the horrible things they printed about Patton in the papers.

The only time you need to hide something from the press, is if you have something to hide.

[dean_acheson]

So in other words the Clintons are going to control CNN opinion polls ahead of Hillarys run for the oval office?

And they say the Republicans are crooked. :roll:

Nowadays, who isn't crooked?

I'm not.

[August]

So in other words the Clintons are going to control CNN opinion polls ahead of Hillarys run for the oval office?

And they say the Republicans are crooked. :roll:
Nowadays, who isn't crooked?
I'm not.

Neither am I.

[Tchocky]

I am. Wholly corrupted.

It's this power thing :)

[August]

I am. Wholly corrupted.

It's this power thing :)

I know. That's why i never believe anything you say! :D

[Tchocky]

LIES!

[August]

LIES!

:D :roll: no really: :D

[Tchocky]

:D :roll: no really: :D

i just had a hilarious moment imaging someone "saying" this in a conversation. Lots of facial exercise!

This will make reading posts a lot more fun :) (<<see!)

[Yahoshua]

So in other words the Clintons are going to control CNN opinion polls ahead of Hillarys run for the oval office?

And they say the Republicans are crooked. :roll:
Nowadays, who isn't crooked?
I'm not.

Neither am I.

If you're not crooked are you squiggly or curly?

[P_Funk]

So in other words the Clintons are going to control CNN opinion polls ahead of Hillarys run for the oval office?

And they say the Republicans are crooked. :roll:
Nowadays, who isn't crooked?
I'm not.
Neither am I.
If you're not crooked are you squiggly or curly?
I'm bent to the left.:p

[shadow701]

You need to HAVE credibility before you can actually lose it. :roll: 24/7 coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and Paris Hilton doesn't seem like news to me. :damn:

[Yahoshua]

Most of the news networks back in the day (read: the 1960s') actually had something decent to put out on the air. But with management changes, the number of foreign correspondents and related funding dropped through the floor. So not much REAL news was being put out for the public since around 1983.

[P_Funk]

Most of the news networks back in the day (read: the 1960s') actually had something decent to put out on the air. But with management changes, the number of foreign correspondents and related funding dropped through the floor. So not much REAL news was being put out for the public since around 1983.
Yea but really whos fault is it anyway? I meet so many people that are blatantly ignorant that it just makes me sad. You can disagree about politics all you like but to be totally unaware of the basic functioning of your country or world on a dialy basis is just... sad.

The integrity of the press itself is mostly sound. There are plenty of excellent reporters out there collecting information, the real difference is whether the execs choose to show it. So the majority of people let it be like this by being ignorant. If they made the effort to just read the news by digging beyond the front page and finding different sources then they'd know that CNN is crap and not watch it or lobby it to clean itself up. But people can't be bothered it seems.

How many times has someone told me, "its just too hard to think about that stuff". :roll:

[Heibges]

I think it is scary just how prophetic Farenheit 451 turned out to be. People would rather sit around watching "I Wanna be a Millionaire" or "American Idol" than think about important issues.

[P_Funk]

I think it is scary just how prophetic Farenheit 451 turned out to be.
Hey buddy. You got the numbers wrong. ;)

[Onkel Neal]

You need to HAVE credibility before you can actually lose it. :roll: 24/7 coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and Paris Hilton doesn't seem like news to me. :damn:

I agree 100%.
Aside from the inevitable bias that any news org will likely have, the two big TV news networks, CNN and Fox, both fail miserably. CNN, as shadow pointed out, devotes way too much time to celebrities and dog-bites-man stories. It's pathetic, who cares about Michael Jackson or who is the father of Anna Nicole's baby? CNN can go days without updating the news from Asia and North Korea. CNN will run a piece on the price of gas but they never mention the rig count or refinery outages. CNN just plain sucks. And Fox new is worse, at least in the presentation. I like the right leaning bias, it gives me something balance the left bias from most other news orgs. But geez, their production values are terrible, all glitter and flash, something that looks like the E! channel. And their website... (http://www.foxnews.com/) :dead: IMO, both are just a grade above tabloid journalism.

In my eyes, CNN has a liberal lean, FOX has more right lean. NPR, which I listen to about 2 hours each work day, is pronounced left. NYT have discredited themselves so frequently I won't even rate them. Washington Post, WSJ and Economist, which I consider the elite news sources, are slightly left, right, and pretty neutral, respectively. You can't go wrong with Post, WSJ, Economist, Guardian, and Christian Science Journal, and NPR on radio. NPR is almost tree-hugger left, but they do very good investigative journalism and they cover their stories throroughly.

I used to tune into Rush occasionally, he makes some good points and used to be capable of keen insight and good analysis, but he has degenerated over the last ten years into a rather ordinary showman. Usually in the noon timeslot I listen to Jim Rhome, he's great.

[moose1am]

Source of this so called news? Fox maybe or G Gordon Liddy or maybe Rushbutterball is an idiot limbaugh?

Hillary was right... there is a vast right wing conspiracy that's designed to take out the Clintons. This is most likely the same people that shot Bobby and Robert and Martin.

Radical Right Wing Zeolots like Dick (breaking the law) Cheney! Or should I say dick "shotem in the face " Cheney.

This story is about a stupid at they come.

CNN is the only news organization that's not totally controlled by the Right Wing Military Industrial Complex . It's only appears to be uncontrolled by these people. The rich own and control the media and don't let anyone tell you different. Because it takes big money to control the media and the Clintons don't own Disney or GE. But you know who does don't you?

So i other words the Clintons are going to control CNN opinion polls ahead of Hillarys run for the oval office?

And they say the Republicans are crooked. :roll:

[moose1am]

The "slant" or Spin started with this thread and this leading stupid question on the title of this thread. Balance is achieved when it's pointed out that Fox news is run by a former Republican Operative Roger Ales who use to be in charge of the National GOP HQ. He's like G Gordon Liddy or close to him.


[quote=FIREWALL]I mean CNN or Fox News or The Wall Street Journal
Didn't take long to slip in the slant, did it? :nope:

[moose1am]

That's because the Regan Appointed Supreme Court Justices voted to Repel the Fairness act for the media. That's when the media really started to show it's bias.

If not for this supreme court decision 5/4 we would not have FOX news at all. They would have to be fair and balance and they defiantly are not fair or balance right now.

We all have the freedom of speech but Speech directed to the masses over the air waves is controlled by the government or should I say MONOPOLIZED by the Rich.

Now if anyone or everyone could broadcast over the airwaves then we would have a better democracy. When only certain people have that privilege it creates problems in this county.

Mass Media via TV or Cable TV and Radio is too powerful to be a monopoly. That's the main problem with this country. It's why we are at war and nobody does anything about it. We didn't sit down for the Vietnam war because the media was force to be fair and to tell both sides of the story equally and to give equal time to both sides of the story. That's not longer being done thanks to the GOP appointed Supreme Court Justices appointed by Regan, and the Bush(s). Unless these conservative GOP judges die early we will be stuck with them for the next 50 years or more. The sad bit is that it wasn't always like that, PD. I mean they actually covered the Vietnam war in a negative light back in the day. Now you get those tacky "Heroes" features.

Hell, you can almost blame every bad turn in North American culture on the 80s.
You're saying current news networks don't cover Iraq in a negative light? Some certainly do.

I'm not saying that any news channel carries the truth more than any other. They just market to different people. You can hear whatever news you prefer by changing the channel. The media as a responsible service doesn't exist anymore for the most part.

PD

[FIREWALL]

[quote=FIREWALL]I mean CNN or Fox News or The Wall Street Journal
Didn't take long to slip in the slant, did it? :nope:


THAT WAS POSTED BY P FUNK.

Avon Lady your useally VERY accurate on your posts.

Watch it young lady or i"ll give you a spanking. :D :rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

THAT WAS POSTED BY P FUNK.

Avon Lady your useally VERY accurate on your posts.

Watch it young lady or i"ll give you a spanking. :D :rotfl:
Has your phone been ringing incesantly all weekend? :p

Me bad. Original post fixed.

[FIREWALL]

Luv ya young lady and am watching 9p.m. news .Be careful over there and my prayers are with you and family and freinds.

I don't even have an emoticon thats right to use.

All I can say is what the hell is wrong with the world EVERYWHERE. :cry:

[The Avon Lady]

Luv ya young lady and am watching 9p.m. news .Be careful over there and my prayers are with you and family and freinds.

I don't even have an emoticon thats right to use.

All I can say is what the hell is wrong with the world EVERYWHERE. :cry:
7:20AM. Little ones getting ready for school. We're all fine, thanks.

There's a tremendous amount wrong with the world but there's enough wrong right over here to fill the contents of our morrning news. Heck! Even the weather (http://www.ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L-3117,00.html) is the pits! :sunny:

[FIREWALL]

I can't even imagine what it's like to go somewhere I live and BOOM a bomb
goes off in a civilian area or anyplace else. I thought I left that behind me in VN along time ago.

Things don't change they just happen somewhere else.

We all should learn from history but we don't.

[The Avon Lady]

I can't even imagine what it's like to go somewhere I live and BOOM a bomb
Actually, it's been years.

Excluding Sderot (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sderot&search=Search) at present.

[FIREWALL]

Well you seem to handle it well. I will still keep you in my thoughts and prayers.:yep:

[The Avon Lady]

So i other words the Clintons are going to control CNN opinion polls ahead of Hillarys run for the oval office?
It's by far not just CNN (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/25/the-friendly-and-familiar-skeletons-in-hillarys-closet/). :nope:

[bradclark1]

It's by far not just CNN (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/25/the-friendly-and-familiar-skeletons-in-hillarys-closet/). :nope:
That's what happens when you constantly try to bury someone. People just get sick of it and ignore. Republicans caused that.:rotfl:

[dean_acheson]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100121742/index.htm?postversion=2007062509

[P_Funk]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100121742/index.htm?postversion=2007062509
The number one reason why the political process doesn't work.

[waste gate]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100121742/index.htm?postversion=2007062509
The number one reason why the political process doesn't work.

In my thinking the system is broken because of the career politician. Strict term limits are in order for the US Federal Government.

US senators to no more than two terms (12 years) and are ineligable for any further senatorial service. The 17th amendment should be repealed and place it back into the hands of the states. The US house of representatives should be restriced to three terms (6 years) and there after be ineligable for any service in the house of representatives.

Also no financial contribution shall be more than $100.00 per individual or entity.

Unfortunately the folks who have to start the process are the very people who will be out of a job.

[Heibges]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100121742/index.htm?postversion=2007062509
The number one reason why the political process doesn't work.

In my thinking the system is broken because of the career politician. Strict term limits are in order for the US Federal Government.

US senators to no more than two terms (12 years) and are ineligable for any further senatorial service. The 17th amendment should be repealed and place it back into the hands of the states. The US house of representatives should be restriced to three terms (6 years) and there after be ineligable for any service in the house of representatives.

Also no financial contribution shall be more than $100.00 per individual or entity.

Unfortunately the folks who have to start the process are the very people who will be out of a job.

I can't remember the name, but I read a sci-fi book (not by L Ron Hubbard) and the government was decided by lottery, and they came and picked your up and pressed you into service if your number was drawn. :up:

[waste gate]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100121742/index.htm?postversion=2007062509
The number one reason why the political process doesn't work.

In my thinking the system is broken because of the career politician. Strict term limits are in order for the US Federal Government.

US senators to no more than two terms (12 years) and are ineligable for any further senatorial service. The 17th amendment should be repealed and place it back into the hands of the states. The US house of representatives should be restriced to three terms (6 years) and there after be ineligable for any service in the house of representatives.

Also no financial contribution shall be more than $100.00 per individual or entity.

Unfortunately the folks who have to start the process are the very people who will be out of a job.

I can't remember the name, but I read a sci-fi book (not by L Ron Hubbard) and the government was decided by lottery, and they came and picked your up and pressed you into service if your number was drawn. :up:

I see what you are saying Heibges:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
I've made my first steps into writing fiction:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

I can't remember the name, but I read a sci-fi book (not by L Ron Hubbard) and the government was decided by lottery, and they came and picked your up and pressed you into service if your number was drawn. :up:
What if.............. (http://www.thesimpsons.com/homerforpresident/). Make sure to read the campaign platform. :88)

[August]

I can't remember the name, but I read a sci-fi book (not by L Ron Hubbard) and the government was decided by lottery, and they came and picked your up and pressed you into service if your number was drawn. :up:

What a horrible idea! I know a significant number of people who I would never want to see in public office.

[August]

Source of this so called news? Fox maybe or G Gordon Liddy or maybe Rushbutterball is an idiot limbaugh?

Hillary was right... there is a vast right wing conspiracy that's designed to take out the Clintons. This is most likely the same people that shot Bobby and Robert and Martin.

Radical Right Wing Zeolots like Dick (breaking the law) Cheney! Or should I say dick "shotem in the face " Cheney.

This story is about a stupid at they come.

CNN is the only news organization that's not totally controlled by the Right Wing Military Industrial Complex . It's only appears to be uncontrolled by these people. The rich own and control the media and don't let anyone tell you different. Because it takes big money to control the media and the Clintons don't own Disney or GE. But you know who does don't you?

Well yeah actually i do and they are strikingly bad examples for the validity of your argument. Walt Disney Productions went public (sold stock) in 1940 and has remained a public stock ever since. No one person currently owns more than 3% of the company stock. Institutional investors (mutual funds, 401 k, etc.) own 65% of the stock. GE is also a public stock traded company. In short they are mostly the same people who will be going to the polls next year to elect a new president. Not the ones who will be running in the election.

As for the source of the article, perhaps you ought to spend a few minutes finding out. Making wild assed guesses before you launch into your pet conspiracy theory sort of cuts the rug out from under your whole argument before we even get to your Dick Cheney hate fest.

Of course i'll note in the meantime that you see nothing wrong with a single political candidate controlling the offical opinion polling mechanism for a major international news source just before the election. How partisan of you.

[The Avon Lady]

Actually, there's a real investment connection between CNN and Disney. Can you find it (http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=4495&name=HRH-Prince-Alwaleed-bin-Talal)?

[dean_acheson]

What was it Winston said.....

"Tyrnanny, tempered by lots of assassinations..." I've always liked that one.
here's the quote, from Dean Acheson of course (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/acheson.htm):

"You see, you all start with the premise that democracy is some good. I don't think it's worth a damn. I think Churchill is right, the only thing to be said for democracy is that there is nothing else that's any better, and therefore he used to say, "Tyranny tempered by assassination, but lots of assassination." People say, "If the Congress were more representative of the people it would be better." I say the Congress is too damn representative. It's just as stupid as the people are; just as uneducated, just as dumb, just as selfish. You know the Congress is a perfect example, and created to be a perfect example."