CNN credibility in question
 

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:

Nowadays, who isn't crooked?

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.

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:

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.

Didn't take long to slip in the slant, did it? :nope:

[quote=The Avon Lady]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.

[QUOTE=P_Funk]I didn't say that. Read carefully.
That's different.
Back on track we go!

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


You two, fight to the death.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k8.../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?

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

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

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.