Thursday, October 19, 2006
CNN: Pornographers of Death
Most of you, by now, have seen the videos obtained by CNN depicting a series of sniper attacks. Naturally, the decision to air them was controversial, and CNN got an earful from veterans, military families, and those sympathetic to them.
CNN responds to their critics as follows:
Translation: We understand full well that we're providing the terrorists free advertising worldwide. We also understand full well that our airing them is cruel and insensitive for those stateside who may be witnessing the killings of our loved ones.
We just don't give a shit.
More:
Yeah, well the "highest levels at CNN" also gave us Ted Turner and wholesale slanderer Eason Jordan. Forgive me if I don't hold your institution in very high regard.
Yeah, you tried to put it in context. You can also put a ring in the snout of a pig. It doesn't make it any less of a pig, though.
Splash, out
Jason
P.S., I am not among those who believes the sniper attacks are faked. I have no reason to doubt the journalistic integrity of the Islamic Army of Iraq, like I do pics from Reuters.
CNN responds to their critics as follows:
We are assuming they included the sniper tape to prove the authenticity of the Al-Shimary interview tape and to establish their credibility. Of course, we also understood that some might conclude there is a public relations benefit for the insurgents if we aired the material, especially on CNN International. We also understood that this kind of footage is upsetting and disturbing for many viewers. But after getting beyond the emotional debate, we concluded the tape meets our criteria for newsworthiness.
Translation: We understand full well that we're providing the terrorists free advertising worldwide. We also understand full well that our airing them is cruel and insensitive for those stateside who may be witnessing the killings of our loved ones.
We just don't give a shit.
More:
You should know we dipped to black at the moment of actual impact of the rounds. A number of us felt airing that precise moment was simply too horrific. That decision, as well as the decision to build a piece around the sniper tape -- in fact, all the decisions about this story -- were subject to hours of intense editorial debate at the highest levels here at CNN.
Yeah, well the "highest levels at CNN" also gave us Ted Turner and wholesale slanderer Eason Jordan. Forgive me if I don't hold your institution in very high regard.
You should also know we tried to put all of this in context. Our reporting included an interview with a current U.S. sniper in Iraq. He's been both under attack from insurgent snipers and he has himself operated as a sniper. We also heard from Major General William Caldwell, a coalition forces spokesman in Iraq, and CNN military analyst General David Grange, formerly with the Green Beret, Delta Force and Army Rangers.
Yeah, you tried to put it in context. You can also put a ring in the snout of a pig. It doesn't make it any less of a pig, though.
Splash, out
Jason
P.S., I am not among those who believes the sniper attacks are faked. I have no reason to doubt the journalistic integrity of the Islamic Army of Iraq, like I do pics from Reuters.
Comments:
Ted Turner finally made up his mind on who he was for in the War on Terror.
So do you suppose the next thing that he'll do is start retouching all the old classic movies to put burqas on the female stars?
So do you suppose the next thing that he'll do is start retouching all the old classic movies to put burqas on the female stars?
How many viewers do you think CNN has?
How many people do you think can download the same shit off YouTube?
Wouldn't you rather people see it with some context on CNN, than what they are already getting direct from the Islamic army directly?
Just asking cause I don't know
How many people do you think can download the same shit off YouTube?
Wouldn't you rather people see it with some context on CNN, than what they are already getting direct from the Islamic army directly?
Just asking cause I don't know
One of CNN/HLN 'presenters' even went so far as to say, with a smile, words to the effect of, "of course this could all just be Jihadist propaganda." He said it at the end of their lengthy (for them) airing of the 'story'. This is the same network that rants and raves when any element of our military or government tries to put even the mildest positive spin on something. But they'll admit they're airing the propaganda of our nation's enemies with a smile. Literally. I guess he couldn't contain himself at the glee of being a tool for our enemies.
YouTube is known for videos of people shooting bottle rockets out of their ass. CNN is known for presenting videos of events that have world-wide impact.
This is the equivalent of airing footage from German newsreels during WWII. We don't need to see our enemies' viewpoints aired on our information networks. Both sides are not equal in this fight. We do not need artificial balance in the reporting on the conflict we find ourselves in.
Bottom line, our enemies can upload their propaganda on their outlets, and we should be uploading ours on our outlets. Only our outlets don't think they are part of us, they think they are part of some world-wide uberculture. This is a problem.
This is the equivalent of airing footage from German newsreels during WWII. We don't need to see our enemies' viewpoints aired on our information networks. Both sides are not equal in this fight. We do not need artificial balance in the reporting on the conflict we find ourselves in.
Bottom line, our enemies can upload their propaganda on their outlets, and we should be uploading ours on our outlets. Only our outlets don't think they are part of us, they think they are part of some world-wide uberculture. This is a problem.
The most highly rated YouTube vids have viewerships numbered in the thousands. CNN has a viewership numbered in the millions.
This might be a quantitative difference even MadTom can grasp! :)
This might be a quantitative difference even MadTom can grasp! :)
# posted by 
: 10:15 AM
: 10:15 AM
Chris, I take exception to this, "This is the equivalent of airing footage from German newsreels during WWII. We don't need to see our enemies' viewpoints aired on our information networks. Both sides are not equal in this fight. We do not need artificial balance in the reporting on the conflict we find ourselves in.
Bottom line, our enemies can upload their propaganda on their outlets, and we should be uploading ours on our outlets. Only our outlets don't think they are part of us, they think they are part of some world-wide uberculture. This is a problem.
Your comments imply that it's CNN's perspective that they are 'balancing' 'our propaganda' by airing this crap. That would be a ridiculous assertion on anyone's part because these bastards won't tell any part of our story in our words. They have access to hours of footage and tens of thousands of words of truthful information (not propaganda) made available to them every day on the "Digital Video and Imagery Distribution System" (DVIDS). All they have to do is download audio, video, still shots, press releases, and other information made available to them by our military's public affairs organizations and use it as they see fit but they NEVER use this asset. Go to the site yourself and see the statistics of what's available and what actually gets used by our media: http://www.dvidshub.net/
They refuse to air what they wrongfully consider "our propaganda". The only time they quote one of our official sources is when it's a spokesman appearing to be defensive about some aspect of operations that our media (CNN in particular) is attacking, and even then they always either follow or precede it with a "but" from some other source.
Because they're too chickenshit to cover stories themselves, they'll hire stringers off the street to provide them stories. There's no verifying done on what the stringers tell them. Some of the stringers have been arrested for working with the insurgents and/or terrorists. And yet, CNN trusts them for accurate reporting more than they trust us.
There is no balance in what CNN did. They aired enemy propaganda as news and refuse to air our truthful and verifiable public information while calling it 'propaganda'.
Bottom line, our enemies can upload their propaganda on their outlets, and we should be uploading ours on our outlets. Only our outlets don't think they are part of us, they think they are part of some world-wide uberculture. This is a problem.
Your comments imply that it's CNN's perspective that they are 'balancing' 'our propaganda' by airing this crap. That would be a ridiculous assertion on anyone's part because these bastards won't tell any part of our story in our words. They have access to hours of footage and tens of thousands of words of truthful information (not propaganda) made available to them every day on the "Digital Video and Imagery Distribution System" (DVIDS). All they have to do is download audio, video, still shots, press releases, and other information made available to them by our military's public affairs organizations and use it as they see fit but they NEVER use this asset. Go to the site yourself and see the statistics of what's available and what actually gets used by our media: http://www.dvidshub.net/
They refuse to air what they wrongfully consider "our propaganda". The only time they quote one of our official sources is when it's a spokesman appearing to be defensive about some aspect of operations that our media (CNN in particular) is attacking, and even then they always either follow or precede it with a "but" from some other source.
Because they're too chickenshit to cover stories themselves, they'll hire stringers off the street to provide them stories. There's no verifying done on what the stringers tell them. Some of the stringers have been arrested for working with the insurgents and/or terrorists. And yet, CNN trusts them for accurate reporting more than they trust us.
There is no balance in what CNN did. They aired enemy propaganda as news and refuse to air our truthful and verifiable public information while calling it 'propaganda'.
You misunderstand me. Propaganda has only a pejorative meaning these days. Propaganda means getting your message out. Our message, that is, the message that we are taking the fight to the enemy, and are winning that fight, albeit with much risk. I was by no means implying that straight news about our successes, military or otherwise, could be considered trumped up or false. Sorry to be unclear. CNN, I believe, feels that they have to provide balance in their minds, because any good news about the mission in Iraq simply must be wrong.
Post a Comment
