PDA

View Full Version : Cnn


The Real Slim Shady
20th Sep 2005, 17:07
Is it just me or does the destruction of commonsense and demolition of the English language by CNN irritate anyone else?

A female reporter, Jennifer Eccleston, commented on the British soldiers abandoning the tank " He was LITERALLY on fire".

I'm not commenting on anything OTHER than the report, by the way.

Either the poor guy was on fire or he wasn't; where does LITERALLy come in to it?

Same report, she reports that Britsih tanks destroyed the walls of the prison to rescue 2 soldiers.

OK, walls down.

Why then does she report "a demonstration outside the gates?"

If this is such a lawless area why are people "outside the gates" of a prison with no walls?

Do they report accurately and objectively?

FLCH
20th Sep 2005, 17:17
It's because CNN caters to the lowest common denominator...

chiglet
20th Sep 2005, 17:31
No, NO,NO I must resist the "obvious" reply.....:rolleyes:
watp,iktch

SASless
20th Sep 2005, 17:48
"CNN report accurately and objectively?"

What planet you been living on?

It is not called the "Clinton News Network" just for any old reason dear fellow.

Next to CBS they are a shining light of truth and impartiality....but that only means they have to walk across the street to the Democratic Headquarters whereas CBS maintains a suite of offices there.

I prefer Fox of the entire bunch....at least they are open about their slant on the news unlike the other airheads.:uhoh:

Incoming! Incoming!

Off to the bunker!:E

High Wing Drifter
20th Sep 2005, 18:10
I loved the Fox New strapline pi$$ take on Dead Ringers:

"Fox News, scaring people sh1tless since 1994"

West Coast
20th Sep 2005, 18:17
CNN is about as impartial as the BBC. Thankfully I at least don't have to pay for them.

SASless
20th Sep 2005, 18:51
Ah but dear chap we do have to pay for NPR....and Bill Moyers and his bunch.:{

Konkordski
20th Sep 2005, 19:36
He was LITERALLY on fire


Can't say I'm a fan of CNN. But if you're going to have a cheap pop at reporters' language skills then at least choose a good example.

This is one of the rare instances of someone using 'literally' correctly (if, perhaps, unnecessarily).

'Literally' is one of the most abused words I know - it's incorrectly used to describe situations which, in reality, are nothing like the descriptions given.

If CNN is demolishing the language, at least it's doing it with a brick-hammer rather than the wrecking-ball frequently employed by some on this forum. :suspect:

Farrell
20th Sep 2005, 19:40
Wasn't the news director on Fox a cousin of Dubya?

And weren't they the first station to announce that he had won the presidency first time round???

Darth Nigel
20th Sep 2005, 20:06
In all honesty, having been flipping around between CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NECN (local 24 "News" station), and a few others that fill the dial between home shopping. televangelists and televised poker games... I'm hard pressed to tell much difference in style between any of the "flash news stations".

You seem to have at least one announcer/news-reader/commentator in a studio, a crawl at the bottom, a nifty graphic for the hard-of-thinking, and some other people (often on a remote link) arguing and interrupting each other. Main goal seems to be to "score points" rather than to present an argument, and it is as close to news as the "Jerry Springer Show". I'd argue that the goal of any of these stations is to inflame rather than inform.

Me, I tend to like the Jim Lehrer News Hour, or some of the C-SPAN stuff, or even the BBC World Service (when I can get it) because things are presented in a more measured form (in my unbiased opinion, of course) and I get a sense that I'm hearing coherent presentations from different sides of an issue or situation... so I can make up my own mind. Of course, it takes longer to listen to, and you have to pay more attention but for a lot of things, thats not a bad thing.

I think that the FOX, CNN, MSNBC ... stations have turned news into a series of bullet-points (7 second sound bites) and cheap shots -- it's fast food for the brain, and like all fast food, too much can be bad for you.

And don't even look at local news... in the US, local news basically sucks.

West Coast
20th Sep 2005, 23:44
"And don't even look at local news... in the US, local news basically sucks"

I for one watch the local news to find out, well...local news. They do an adequite job, especially in local politics. San Diego stations that is. I watch network news or cable if I want national and international news. I also like to see the same story covered by a few different organizations to find evidence of bias.


"Me, I tend to like the Jim Lehrer News Hour, or some of the C-SPAN stuff"

I agree. Lehrer does a good job. My reading list comes mainly from book reviews on C- span

planepsycho
21st Sep 2005, 00:05
Boy am I out of touch on television viewing. I haven't had a television for 5 years, and I don't miss is, weird huh? However, I read the breaking news on an australian website, because it's tomorrow there and they report world news as it happens mostly when the usa is sleeping, then I read the online version of our media in the usa to see what kind of spin they're putting on whatever is happening, like rewording details. In all honesty, media rules the world.

SASless
21st Sep 2005, 07:57
Planepsycho,

Let me get this straight....you say you read yer news from Australia by internet inas they get the news a day ahead of time. You then tune in to the US media and see what kind of spin they put on the news of the day.

Sounds like a neat idea.

Couple of questions....where does the Australian version of the news come from? God? The Tea Cup on the readers desk?

Surely they pull their news from......a USA source...someone had to eyeball or hear what is now news...thus it had to come from the "source" nation.

I would suggest unless one sees it firsthand...like in person...or by live video with simultaneous audio...one is bound to be working on less than accurate reporting.

Common fact of life is translation of facts from one ear to another is very fallible and has been proven to be far from accurate.

Thus I would suggest your news source is not reliable.

Go buy yerself a Telly...subscribe to a cable or sat service that provides you C-Span and a few of the other news services...and draw your news from multiple sources...pay particular attention to the video in the background...and see if what the talking head is saying mimics what you are seeing in the video. Oft times that proves what the talking head is saying is pure bollocks.

planepsycho
21st Sep 2005, 10:55
I do draw my conclusions from multiple news sources....read several online newspapers including BBC online, fox news, msnbc and local news sources......and also watch video clips online. I realize that they all pull their news from the associated press and such, however, some media outlets change around a few facts occaionally when reporting news items. I hate commercials, don't want a television.