CNN's Take on Berkley Riots

[Guest]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6gl-iHb1gA

I find it very telling that throughout this 5 minute video, neither narrator (even Anderson Cooper -- whom I have a great deal of respect for) said anything negative about these activities.  The female reporter even describe it as "having an energy about it".

[anatess2]

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6gl-iHb1gA

I find it very telling that throughout this 5 minute video, neither narrator (even Anderson Cooper -- whom I have a great deal of respect for) said anything negative about these activities.  The female reporter even describe it as "having an energy about it".

CNN decided to go full-on anti-Trump.  I stopped watching them after the elections because it has just gotten too crazy in there. 

I mean, I continued to flip to their channel even after they went wall-to-wall on the stupid missing airplane effectively implementing a media blackout to avoid having to talk about the worsening crisis in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East caused by Obama and Merkel's foreign policies.  I continued to watch Anderson Cooper even after he kept on comparing the Philippines to first world country response protocols on typhoon Haiyan even as it made me wanna shake him silly.

But these days... they've just gone off their rockers.  So yeah, they're on a narrative war against Trump.  Anybody have doubts on who's gonna win that war?

[Blackmarch]

On 2/2/2017 at 9:45 PM, Carborendum said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6gl-iHb1gA

I find it very telling that throughout this 5 minute video, neither narrator (even Anderson Cooper -- whom I have a great deal of respect for) said anything negative about these activities.  The female reporter even describe it as "having an energy about it".

i think i'd cheer if all the major news agencies (at least their top tier folks) got stuck in front of a firing squad... if you ever listen to that molyneux guy from freedom radio he had one of the dudes who were in the middle of it recall the events that evening.... had it been reverse ideoligically you could be sure that every news wouldbe covering it in detail..  >.<

 

[Mike]

On 2/2/2017 at 9:45 PM, Carborendum said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6gl-iHb1gA

I find it very telling that throughout this 5 minute video, neither narrator (even Anderson Cooper -- whom I have a great deal of respect for) said anything negative about these activities.  The female reporter even describe it as "having an energy about it".

If you are referring to the same description that I heard at 1:41 into the video, I'm not sure what you mean by very telling. I heard her say it was a "very *scary* energy happening". To me "very scary energy" is negative.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Mike said:

If you are referring to the same description that I heard at 1:41 into the video, I'm not sure what you mean by very telling. I heard her say it was a "very *scary* energy happening". To me "very scary energy" is negative.

I really didn't hear that word.  I thought she was repeating herself because she tripped over a word "a very...(mmble) energy"

I'll have to check it out when I get home.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

43 minutes ago, Mike said:

If you are referring to the same description that I heard at 1:41 into the video, I'm not sure what you mean by very telling. I heard her say it was a "very *scary* energy happening". To me "very scary energy" is negative.

You don't need to watch much of the video.  All you need is the CNN banner on the bottom referring to Milo as an Alt-Right Speaker.  That is more than enough "telling" right there.  Milo = Alt-Right is about as Fake News as you can get.

[Traveler]

 

In this mortal existence there is no such thing as news or history it is all opinion.  Hugh Nibley use to say that facts are truths altered by opinions.   From scripture we learn that there is a bias to all things – the scripture term for “bias” is “opposition”.   When someone is telling others something they will always tell with a bias.  What we need to learn is the bias by which someone speaks.  I personally believe (it is my bias) that those that try to pretend or think that they do not have a bias and speak without bias are the worst offenders (most dishonest) of their particular bias.

 

The Traveler

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I really didn't hear that word.  I'll have to check it out when I get home.

Moreover, I noticed that at about 3:19 - 3:59 she expressed "astonishment" that people were taking pictures and that as the flames increased she heard "cheers" from the crowd. I didn't get an impression that she was in any way sympathetic to what was going on. 

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

 

In this mortal existence there is no such thing as news or history it is all opinion.  Hugh Nibley use to say that facts are truths altered by opinions.   From scripture we learn that there is a bias to all things – the scripture term for “bias” is “opposition”.   When someone is telling others something they will always tell with a bias.  What we need to learn is the bias by which someone speaks.  I personally believe (it is my bias) that those that try to pretend or think that they do not have a bias and speak without bias are the worst offenders (most dishonest) of their particular bias.

 

The Traveler

Disagree.  A journalist goes to school and gets paid money because they WORK AT overcoming their biases.  That is their job.

[NeuroTypical]

Yeah, they all fail though.  All humans fail at ridding themselves of bias.  It's not in us.  Unbiased news doesn't exist.  The best you get, is someone who knows their bias, and is transparent about it.  

[Mike]

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You don't need to watch much of the video.  All you need is the CNN banner on the bottom referring to Milo as an Alt-Right Speaker.  That is more than enough "telling" right there.  Milo = Alt-Right is about as Fake News as you can get.

I don't need to watch much of the video? That's seems like a strange thing for you to say since the video is the subject of the OP, at least I thought it was. As to the banner being fake news I don't perceive it that way. Without knowing more I can't tell whether CNN is essentially identifying the protestors' motivations (i.e. what the protestors themselves feel about Milo Y. or whether some CNN tech (part of the team) has (rightly or wrongly) typed up a banner depicting a particular view-point that perceives Milo Y. as being one who gained fame by main-streaming alt-right views. For the moment I see the banner as being little more than an illustration of what @NeuroTypical reminded us regarding bias.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Mike

[Traveler]

14 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Disagree.  A journalist goes to school and gets paid money because they WORK AT overcoming their biases.  That is their job.

Let me see if I understand you correctly.  Are you telling me that Berkley, because it is a “school” that is educated, expert and paid to not have a bias - so Berkley and what happens at that university is not biased?  That the journlaists at CNN are examples of no bias?  Would you provide me with a liberal arts school with a “respected” journalism department that you believe to be void of any political bias?

Maybe I misunderstood your bias - sorry.  

 

The Traveler

Edited February 6, 2017 by Traveler

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Let me see if I understand you correctly.  Are you telling me that Berkley, because it is a “school” that is educated, expert and paid to not have a bias - so Berkley and what happens at that university is not biased?  That the journlaists at CNN are examples of no bias?  Would you provide me with a liberal arts school with a “respected” journalism department that you believe to be void of any political bias?

Maybe I misunderstood your bias - sorry.  

 

The Traveler

Traveler... not everybody that goes to UC Berkley go there to study Journalism.  CNN, on the other hand, is a News Network and are supposed to be run by Journalists and the accompaying Journalistic Ethics and code of conduct where they report the news, not report their bias.  Of course, I have posited here many times that Journalism is DEAD in the Mainstream Media and that includes Journalism schools.  And this 5 minute CNN coverage is shining proof that Journalism is dead in CNN.

Now, if you want to know what a REAL journalist is - go check out Jamie Dupree.

Trump's war waged against the media is a war I want waged.  Journalism needs to grow a sense of ethics back into their profession.

Edited February 6, 2017 by anatess2

[prisonchaplain]

I remember thinking in the 1980s that news was all bias, editorializing, and propaganda, and how it would be better if they just quit pretending.  I WAS WRONG.  It is now clear to me that back in the 1980s news media was biased, but they at least tried to be objective--tried to separate news from editorial.  Today most journalists and media outlets openly admit that they believe they are on a mission to protect/educate/enlighten/etc. Some even hope to generate dissent.  Oh how I miss the days when media's leftward bias was subtle and somewhat unintentional.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Traveler... not everybody that goes to UC Berkley go there to study Journalism.  CNN, on the other hand, is a News Network and are supposed to be run by Journalists and the accompaying Journalistic Ethics and code of conduct where they report the news, not report their bias.  Of course, I have posited here many times that Journalism is DEAD in the Mainstream Media and that includes Journalism schools.  And this 5 minute CNN coverage is shining proof that Journalism is dead in CNN.

Now, if you want to know what a REAL journalist is - go check out Jamie Dupree.

Trump's war waged against the media is a war I want waged.  Journalism needs to grow a sense of ethics back into their profession.

Twice in my lifetime I have been an eye witness to events that made the national news.  Both times I was astonished at the reporting.  The first time was in the 60’s and nothing on the news reals was remotely close to actual events I saw.

Another very rude awakening happened in college with a roommate that was from a wealthy family in Mexico as we tried to understand each other’s historical understanding of the events at the Alamo in Texas history.  I have also discovered that as a BYU fan sitting next to my brother who is a Utah fan – while watching the exact same play in a game between our two alma maters and we cannot even agree what happened.  Recently I sat in a car with 3 others at a stoplight when an accident occurred in front of us.  There was no consistency – we could not even agree on the directions the cars were traveling in before the accident and when the traffic light changed. 

The whole effort of a so called magician is the art of convincing an entire audience that what they saw was and illusion and not what really happened.  There are scientific studies that prove that the human brain will interpret what it wants to see and not what in reality is.  Such studies also prove that the human memory functions exactly the same – remembering only what it wants or wants to interpret as memory.

The idea of ethics and morals in reporting (journalism) is as flawed as our human species.  It is like trying to argue what is justice with an atheists or what is true doctrine with individuals of different religions.   When we ignore bias – it is only because of a bias we like better.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

25 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I remember thinking in the 1980s that news was all bias, editorializing, and propaganda, and how it would be better if they just quit pretending.  I WAS WRONG.  It is now clear to me that back in the 1980s news media was biased, but they at least tried to be objective--tried to separate news from editorial.  Today most journalists and media outlets openly admit that they believe they are on a mission to protect/educate/enlighten/etc. Some even hope to generate dissent.  Oh how I miss the days when media's leftward bias was subtle and somewhat unintentional.

I would submit that the reason you thought the news was unbiased is because you did not have any other views with which to compare.  There are few tests we can perform to validate - except to ask others and then we get another bias.  But we think that the more with the same bias the more likely that bias is correct.  Whic is why studies in brain washing have proven that if a lie is heard enought time especially by a source we respect - it will be believed to be true.

But we also demand in freedome of the press - that a reporter not have to be responsible and capable of proving what is true in a court of law.

 

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I would submit that the reason you thought the news was unbiased

I'm not sure if this point would alter the rest of your post, but what I said was that in the 1980s I considered news reporting to be biased, but that now the slanting is intentional and without apology. There was never the suggestion that news was unbiased. 

[anatess2]

21 hours ago, Mike said:

I don't need to watch much of the video? That's seems like a strange thing for you to say since the video is the subject of the OP, at least I thought it was. As to the banner being fake news I don't perceive it that way. Without knowing more I can't tell whether CNN is essentially identifying the protestors' motivations (i.e. what the protestors themselves feel about Milo Y. or whether some CNN tech (part of the team) has (rightly or wrongly) typed up a banner depicting a particular view-point that perceives Milo Y. as being one who gained fame by main-streaming alt-right views. For the moment I see the banner as being little more than an illustration of what @NeuroTypical reminded us regarding bias.

Mike,the banner is CNN's choice of news title.  So, let's say you are right and CNN is trying to use the point of view of the protesters for the news title - that in itself shows the bias.  Of all the many ways to title a news story, why use the protester's point-of-view?  Below that banner is the news ticker for all news they are currently reporting on, they have the news in "twitter detail" (very short summaries).  For much of the day (I'm only talking news shows, not their opinion shows), you can turn off the audio and just watch that banner and ticker to see what's going on.  That banner and the ticker that expands a bit on their banners, more often than not, illustrates the CNN bias.  And that's BEFORE you listen to the news.  I've been watching CNN since the 90's.  Their coverage of the Clinton-Lewinski event was puke-biased to the point that CNN was instrumental in reducing Ken Starr into a pervert in the arena of public opinion and Lewinski into a brainless bimbo.  But at least, in those days, their bias did not permeate the entire news cycle.  These days, there's no reprieve.

Fox News news shows (not talking about their opinion shows) also show bias - leaning right.  It has gotten more so this election cycle.  But, at least, the entire day is not like that.  The banner on Fox News refers to Milo as "Brietbart Speaker" on the primetime news hours.  They did refer to him as an Alt-Right speaker in one show that I remember non-primetime.  Fox News got split during the elections with a faction going anti-Trump/anti-Brietbart as several of their political analysts went full-on NeverTrump.  But, unlike CNN where you got journalists like Ashleigh Banfield and Don Lemon - unchecked leftists - running their news shows, Fox News still try to practice control of their bias in the news shows so much so that their opinion shows (all right wingers) bash their own network's news anchors.

In the Philippines, the public lamented Pinky Webb's move from ABS-CBN to CNN-Philippines as Pinky was a popular ethical journalist that they feared is going to become trash with the rest of the CNN-Phils cast of characters.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2017 by anatess2

[Mike]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Mike,the banner is CNN's choice of news title.  So, let's say you are right and CNN is trying to use the point of view of the protesters for the news title - that in itself shows the bias.  Of all the many ways to title a news story, why use the protester's point-of-view? 

I copied only the part above because I think you and I are essentially in agreement about bias. Let me be clear that I don't deny that CNN is biased to the left, and as you pointed out FOX News is biased to the right. I have no problem with that. I presume that you and I are also similar in our efforts to listen (as much as we can stand given our own personal biases) two or more opposing networks because we think we'll get what we seek--that being either ammunition to use against our opponents or a the ability to decide for ourselves what the most complete picture of reality is, or heaven forbid merely assistance in keeping our point of view "pure", haha.  So, I don't have a problem with a banner designed to get my attention the way CNN's banner was.  Moreover, I wouldn't have a problem if FOX News (or any conservative-leaning network) posted a banner designed to get my attention based upon it's presumption of overall viewership bias. I believe the only point in my awareness of a given network's bias is to utilize it to check my own efforts at forming an understanding or opinion as I make comparisons.

So, as to your question "why use the protester's point of view?", I feel like *that* is the news or at least part of it. I suppose they could have lead with something like "protest at UC Berkeley over conservative speaker..." or something, but for me it wouldn't make difference. I would still watch the video and come away with the same conclusions as I posted earlier. 

[anatess2]

33 minutes ago, Mike said:

I copied only the part above because I think you and I are essentially in agreement about bias. Let me be clear that I don't deny that CNN is biased to the left, and as you pointed out FOX News is biased to the right. I have no problem with that. I presume that you and I are also similar in our efforts to listen (as much as we can stand given our own personal biases) two or more opposing networks because we think we'll get what we seek--that being either ammunition to use against our opponents or a the ability to decide for ourselves what the most complete picture of reality is, or heaven forbid merely assistance in keeping our point of view "pure", haha.  So, I don't have a problem with a banner designed to get my attention the way CNN's banner was.  Moreover, I wouldn't have a problem if FOX News (or any conservative-leaning network) posted a banner designed to get my attention based upon it's presumption of overall viewership bias. I believe the only point in my awareness of a given network's bias is to utilize it to check my own efforts at forming an understanding or opinion as I make comparisons.

So, as to your question "why use the protester's point of view?", I feel like *that* is the news or at least part of it. I suppose they could have lead with something like "protest at UC Berkeley over conservative speaker..." or something, but for me it wouldn't make difference. I would still watch the video and come away with the same conclusions as I posted earlier. 

The TITLE sets the narrative.  I can't remember if I posted an illustration of this on Mormonhub or if I just sent it as a PM to @askandanswer or if I put it on a different discussion board.  But I grew up fighting these narratives in the Philippines for several of my family members running for office.  Philippine news is rife with it.  As far as international news, the problem with the Philippines is they pick up international news from American news sources like CNN and New York Times and the White House Press Corps (that @Just_A_Guy appropriately called Press Corpse) bias and all.  That narrative of Milo being an Alt-Right speaker is now spread all over the planet.  Because, the Philippines don't necessarily know the conflict between Trump and Protesters enough to know which has the moral high ground.  The moral high ground is fed to them by CNN - in this case, with the Protester's point-of-view being the Title, then the Protesters gets the moral high ground and therefore, Milo is an Alt-Right speaker regardless of Milo himself saying he ain't so.

This is not just true of the Philippines - this is true in the US as well with what Rush Limbaugh likes to call, the low-information voter.  Hollywood belongs in that group.  And they have loud microphones.  CNN promoted the news that Trump mocked a reporter's disability.  Fake News.  You wouldn't be able to tell with Meryl Streep and CNN political analysts themselves stating it as fact.  Because, the minute you put that Fake News on the banner, it becomes the moral high ground and anybody contradicting it becomes the ones suspect.

That, Mike, is how the Democrats OWNED public opinion before Trump launched a "nuke" at CNN.

International News is still a mess.  So much so that you have International Leaders like President Duterte making policy decisions based on biased news that Trump is a dictator because he is trying to squash Washington State... and all these protests are indicative of his dictatorship because, in international news, the protesters have the moral high ground just like Black Lives Matter has the moral high ground.

And it doesn't help that the biased news goes both ways... Marco Rubio brought up Fake News in the LA Times about Duterte in the Congressional Hearings for Tillerson like it is fact.  So much so that he made it look like Tillerson was a bad dude for stating he wants to verify that on the ground instead of relying on the LA Times depiction.

Edited February 7, 2017 by anatess2

[Traveler]

18 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I'm not sure if this point would alter the rest of your post, but what I said was that in the 1980s I considered news reporting to be biased, but that now the slanting is intentional and without apology. There was never the suggestion that news was unbiased. 

 

Just so you know – I believe all sources are biased.  Including G-d and Satan.  That is why you will get a different picture of things depending on the source – especially the priority of how things are presented.  This may sound odd but I believe that knowing the bias of a source is very often more important than the information itself.   

 

The Traveler

[Mike]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

The TITLE sets the narrative.  I can't remember if I posted an illustration of this on Mormonhub or if I just sent it as a PM to @askandanswer or if I put it on a different discussion board.  But I grew up fighting these narratives in the Philippines for several of my family members running for office.  Philippine news is rife with it.  As far as international news, the problem with the Philippines is they pick up international news from American news sources like CNN and New York Times and the White House Press Corps (that @Just_A_Guy appropriately called Press Corpse) bias and all.  That narrative of Milo being an Alt-Right speaker is now spread all over the planet.  Because, the Philippines don't necessarily know the conflict between Trump and Protesters enough to know which has the moral high ground.  The moral high ground is fed to them by CNN - in this case, with the Protester's point-of-view being the Title, then the Protesters gets the moral high ground and therefore, Milo is an Alt-Right speaker regardless of Milo himself saying he ain't so.

This is not just true of the Philippines - this is true in the US as well with what Rush Limbaugh likes to call, the low-information voter.  Hollywood belongs in that group.  And they have loud microphones.  CNN promoted the news that Trump mocked a reporter's disability.  Fake News.  You wouldn't be able to tell with Meryl Streep and CNN political analysts themselves stating it as fact.  Because, the minute you put that Fake News on the banner, it becomes the moral high ground and anybody contradicting it becomes the ones suspect.

That, Mike, is how the Democrats OWNED public opinion before Trump launched a "nuke" at CNN.

International News is still a mess.  So much so that you have International Leaders like President Duterte making policy decisions based on biased news that Trump is a dictator because he is trying to squash Washington State... and all these protests are indicative of his dictatorship because, in international news, the protesters have the moral high ground just like Black Lives Matter has the moral high ground.

And it doesn't help that the biased news goes both ways... Marco Rubio brought up Fake News in the LA Times about Duterte in the Congressional Hearings for Tillerson like it is fact.  So much so that he made it look like Tillerson was a bad dude for stating he wants to verify that on the ground instead of relying on the LA Times depiction.

I think understand what you're saying, but you seem to have gone from "banner" to "title" and narrative has become the buzzword of the week. The narrative doesn't have to be perceived as set. We're smart enough to choose whether to pick it up and run with it or change it. I think the fact that I posted what I posted so far on this thread illustrates this, along with the fact that you have decided what you think the narrative is or should be--based I might add upon your own biases alongside my own biases. Seems to me what you write above is re-stating what we already know about human tendencies in general. 

You say the Democrats owned public opinion before Trump launched a "nuke" at CNN. That statement is, for me, a totally separate thread in itself relating to what I think is the damage he may be doing to the whole concept of journalism's role in a democracy (or a Republic or a democratic republic, or a free society, or whatever.) But I don't agree that the Democrats owned public opinion in the first place.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Mike

[anatess2]

51 minutes ago, Mike said:

I think understand what you're saying, but you seem to have gone from "banner" to "title" and narrative has become the buzzword of the week. The narrative doesn't have to be perceived as set. We're smart enough to choose whether to pick it up and run with it or change it. I think the fact that I posted what I posted so far on this thread illustrates this, along with the fact that you have decided what you think the narrative is or should be--based I might add upon your own biases alongside my own biases. Seems to me what you write above is re-stating what we already know about human tendencies in general. 

(You say the Democrats owned public opinion before Trump launched a "nuke" at CNN. That statement is, for me, a totally separate thread in itself relating to what I think is the damage he may be doing to the whole concept of journalism's role in a democracy. But I don't agree that the Democrats owned public opinion in the first place.)  

Mike, are we really having a discussion on whether the Journalist's manipulation of the narrative is an injustice to their unique role in society?  Is it not proof enough of the damage inflicted by the journalists' role in starting the Spanish-American War?

The banner holds the TV news' Title.  On a newspaper, the Title is that text that is in big letters and goes on top of the news story.  They're one and the same.  The banner, of course, shows not just the Title.  It can also change to identify the speaker, etc.  So, when I refer to banner, I refer to everything on the banner, not just the Title.  When I refer to Title, I refer specifically to the Title that is on the banner.

You don't have to agree that the Democrats owned public opinion... there's plenty enough proof of the media's influence in pop culture displaying the Democrat agenda.  Here, you can read this for a historical context.

Yes, human tendencies is biased.  Journalists GO TO SCHOOL  and GET PAID to overcome that bias and report the NEWS not their opinions of the news.  CNN, on the other hand, try their best to promote the Democrat agenda while pretending to not be biased.  Do you remember Candy Crowley on the Obama/Romney debate?  That's just one teeny weeny example.

Rush Limbaugh became an icon in history because he was the first one to have cracked the Democrat's grip on public opinion by providing an alternative opinion to run counter of the journalists' narrative.  Rush, of course, is not a journalist.  So he can spout opinion all day long.

Edited February 7, 2017 by anatess2

[Mike]

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Mike, are we really having a discussion on whether the Journalist's manipulation of the narrative is an injustice to their unique role in society?  Is it not proof enough of the damage inflicted by the journalists' role in starting the Spanish-American War?

The banner holds the TV news' Title.  On a newspaper, the Title is that text that is in big letters and goes on top of the news story.  They're one and the same.  The banner, of course, shows not just the Title.  It can also change to identify the speaker, etc.  So, when I refer to banner, I refer to everything on the banner, not just the Title.  When I refer to Title, I refer specifically to the Title that is on the banner.

You don't have to agree that the Democrats owned public opinion... there's plenty enough proof of the media's influence in pop culture displaying the Democrat agenda.  Here, you can read this for a historical context.

Yes, human tendencies is biased.  Journalists GO TO SCHOOL  and GET PAID to overcome that bias and report the NEWS not their opinions of the news.  CNN, on the other hand, try their best to promote the Democrat agenda while pretending to not be biased.  Do you remember Candy Crowley on the Obama/Romney debate?  That's just one teeny weeny example.

Rush Limbaugh became an icon in history because he was the first one to have cracked the Democrat's grip on public opinion by providing an alternative opinion to run counter of the journalists' narrative.  Rush, of course, is not a journalist.  So he can spout opinion all day long.

When I started I was having a discussion on the degree to which the reporters in the OP video were saying anything negative (or positive) about the actions of the protesters. I wasn't prepared (motivated) to discuss the comparisons between CNN and William Hearst, Joseph Pulitzer, et al. So maybe I should apologize to you as a respectful friend for my lack of preparedness in what is for you a larger issue. 

Maybe for now I should just say that I agree journalists today need to work harder for objectivity (this being the case since the first man or woman picked up a writing instrument); and journalists "ought" to be less motivated by the need to sell more newspapers, etc. and more motivated by the quest for truth (definitely the case since the first conversation on this planet). I personally believe that every (well maybe not every single one given all the garbage on the internet alongside all the good on the internet) outlet has reporters that are or at least started out on the right side of the equation. 

And I will take the opportunity to express my lack of admiration for Rush Limbaugh, and just leave that where it lies. No pun intended.  

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, Mike said:

When I started I was having a discussion on the degree to which the reporters in the OP video were saying anything negative (or positive) about the actions of the protesters. I wasn't prepared (motivated) to discuss the comparisons between CNN and William Hearst, Joseph Pulitzer, et al. So maybe I should apologize to you as a respectful friend for my lack of preparedness in what is for you a larger issue. 

Maybe for now I should just say that I agree journalists today need to work harder for objectivity (this being the case since the first man or woman picked up a writing instrument); and journalists "ought" to be less motivated by the need to sell more newspapers, etc. and more motivated by the quest for truth (definitely the case since the first conversation on this planet). I personally believe that every (well maybe not every single one given all the garbage on the internet alongside all the good on the internet) outlet has reporters that are or at least started out on the right side of the equation. 

And I will take the opportunity to express my lack of admiration for Rush Limbaugh, and just leave that where it lies. No pun intended.  

Oh yeah, sorry.  I got this beef with Journalists in general and CNN in particular... I've discussed it on Mormonhub, I think I even have a thread open on it if I remember correctly.  I can talk all day about them.

Rush Limbaugh is not for the general masses.  You have to really know the issue to be able to analyze the veracity of his opinions on things.  I follow him only because his website has the transcript for his entire 3-hour show everyday and so I go read it often.  Sean Hannity I can't stand.  Both radio and TV shows.  You know who I like on Fox?  Tucker Carlson!  He's a right-winger, of course, but his show is one-on-one debates unlike Sean Hannity who calls in a left-winger and a right-winger to debate a topic and then HE joins the debate which makes it a 2-to-1 beat down.  Tucker allows the other guy to talk and present their side (Hannity interrupts everybody) which, a lot of times, buries their argument without Tucker's help (because it's just ridiculous) but a lot of times, the other side succeed in presenting their rationale logically and persuasively and making Tucker the one that sounds ridiculous.  Tucker has been my go-to prime time show after I instituted a CNN boycott.

Edited February 7, 2017 by anatess2