6/30 Is there any better way for http://cnn.com to downplay the deaths of 16
U.S. SOCOM and Navy Seals than to title it:
"Bodies recovered from Afghan crash" (cnn.com)
Also compare to International Edition link for http://cnn.com.
Besides having a different lead, http://edition.cnn.com even has this:
"Bush nets career-low TV audience | 9/11 link slammed".
\_ Um, the chinook went down like three days ago. There was lots of
reporting then. They finally got in to see the crash site and
recover the bodies.
\_ Yeah, but reporting then was "fates unknown".
Think of it like this: When three or more U.S. soldiers died
in a single incident, what kind of coverage did you see then?
Compare to the http://cnn.com title.
\_ Look, I'm all about criticizing poor media coverage, but in
this case, I think you're kneejerking.
\_ I really don't think so. 16 U.S. soldiers dead in a
single incident. This is normally big news, and it was
small-medium news a few days ago on Day 1 of reporting.
You can also compare it to the network TV news web sites.
\_ Haha, is CNN the new Foxnews? -- ilyas
\_ The general wisdom is since 9/11 they've been getting pounded by
Fox News and they want to do something about that.
Anyway, there is a difference between http://cnn.com and CNN (cable TV),
with the former being more easily measurable.
IMO, http://foxnews.com has been more "balanced" than http://cnn.com. Har.
\_ General wisdom sure is smart. -- ilyas
\_ I don't know about that, but in this specific case,
general wisdom likely matches core truths.
\_ [deleted], let me explain how this works.
'General wisdom' is explaining an 'observation'
(which may or may not
be valid), with a theory which is neither verifiable nor
falsifiable, for all practical purposes. This theory
can't 'match' anything. -- ilyas
\_ Your definition of general wisdom is strict, and
by being strict suits your argument well. Sorry,
but that's all I'm going to discuss on this
particular topic. To objectively measure this,
you could ask intelligent people of neutral political
leanings, "What do you think of the sentence, 'The
general wisdom is since 9/11 [CNN has been] getting
pounded by Fox News and they want to do something
about that'" (without any tone inflection or
suggestion that anything in particular is wrong).
I'd also ask that you refrain from using my name
if I don't post it. It's not very nice from my
perspective, especially when I have tried to be
civil in this discussion. Thanks.
\_ Right, it's the fact that my definition is too
strict, not the fact that this is just a conspiracy
theory which nobody can possibly confirm. -- ilyas
\_ What is this conspiracy theory I adhere to
exactly?
\_ You should meet his brother, Lieutenant Knowledge! |
http://csua.com/feed/