If you know any registered US voters that haven't made up their mind
yet, make sure they read this article before they do:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?pagewanted=1&adxnnl=0&oref=login&adxnnlx98108013-2k+5owIegI9fzmqAjjknZw
And a small rant: Why is CNN reporting that Putin urges American voters
to vote for Bush but not that a recent survey of 35 countries showed
that only 3 support Bush. 2 were split 50/50. The remaining 30 would
rather see Kerry as the next US president.
–
_______________________________
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
_______________________________
very scary stuff
-
Type: discussion
Comments
because for some odd reason CNN seems to want Bush re-elected.
i don't get it either. they have a Bush bias that's as bad as Fox, just subtle.
AE04
http://www.atomicelroy.com
CHAOS Studios
On Monday, October 18, 2004, at 09:13PM, atomic elroy <[email protected]> wrote:
>because for some odd reason CNN seems to want Bush re-elected.
CNN made their name covering Gulf War I. If some hippie peacenik is elected, they'll lose their most interesting source material.
>i don't get it either. they have a Bush bias that's as bad as Fox, just subtle.
Subtle? :-)
- Rob.
Yeah, I guess having a president who may actually try to avoid war and
promote positive relations with the rest of the world, would make for
rather boring news.
Rob Myers wrote:
> On Monday, October 18, 2004, at 09:13PM, atomic elroy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>because for some odd reason CNN seems to want Bush re-elected.
>
>
> CNN made their name covering Gulf War I. If some hippie peacenik is elected, they'll lose their most interesting source material.
>
>
>>i don't get it either. they have a Bush bias that's as bad as Fox, just subtle.
>
>
> Subtle? :-)
>
> - Rob.
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
–
_______________________________
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
_______________________________
>CNN made their name covering Gulf War I. If some hippie peacenik is
>elected, they'll lose their most interesting source material.
that could easily be true. but that's capitalism and drama. i think
we can still benefit from the result. we have to stop trusting the
media to discern what the important issues for us though.
trying to appeal to the bush supporters (which they estimate are
almost half their audience) means talking about issues the
republicans go wild about. but the bush people are phenomenal
experts at generating fluff. non-issues. trivial distraction from
the rampant destruction bush has done.
whether they are underestimating the intelligence of their audience
or not, they are obligated to cater to them. even wolf blitzer
(their head anchorman) interviewing guests about the non-issue of
cheney's daughter …
guest: there's no point in going on about this ridiculously inane
topic, it is distracting from the important issues.
blitzer: i agree. but you should see how much mail i am getting from
folks about it. they really want it discussed.
actually,it's a vicious circle. the folks rant and rave when they
see it on tv, the tv responds to the ranting and raving. the folks
see it on tv as something to rant and rave about. and tv
accommodates them.
i feel sorry for cnn, because, while it appears many reporters are
able to investigate and ask thoughtful questions, they are stuck
talking about topics so absurd, there is often nothing to ask,
nothing to investigate. wolf blitzer has a good poker face, but the
bush camp reporter (who has been blatantly anti-bush all year) looks
astoundingly bored and disgusted. there's nothing constructive to
say, but he has to fill those 3 seconds to pay the bills.
> >i don't get it either. they have a Bush bias that's as bad as Fox,
>just subtle.
>
>Subtle? :-)
actually, they have a subtle bias both ways. it appears to alternate
about every day. they do things like choose when to break in an
argument, cut off or cut short a guest. they'll have a day bringing
on "experts" entirely on one sided. that day no guests will be
brought in to present facts about damage in iraq, our limping
economy, the effects of the demise of social security, unless they
are paired in a debate, then the next day the opposite.
we keep cnn on all day most days, and trends in reporting are
definitely showing. their news is biased, but mostly because issues
are given equal time as the distractions. you have to assess the
relevance of each report and pay attention or ignore. but the same
is true of every news source in the world, that is the fundamental
nature of news.
it could be they present 20% issues, 80% fluff, but it could also be
we have attention spans that can follow about 20% of the events and
about 80% seem meaningless. probably both dynamics are at work.
whatever the case, if bush has any supporters with incomes that
aren't in that top 2%, whether any issues are important or not, seems
toi have no logical relevance. it seems impossible they'd let this
terrorist run for office again, after infiltrating the system. might
as well give his partner bin laden the job. bush is doing nothing
but the most extreme damage, and cnn IS showing it. but they are
also reporting on bush's hump in his suit. the people may not be
capable or willing to differentiate, but probably a lot of us are
just used to not expecting to.