CNN Flashes 'X' Over VP'S Face During Live Speech

[ylexot (Premo)]

No, there's no liberal bias at CNN...

At 11:04:45 AM ET Monday CNN was airing Vice President Dick Cheney's speech live from the American Enterprise Institute in Washington -- when a large black 'X' repeatedly flashed over the vice president's face!

[ylexot (Premo)]

Another Drudge Flash...
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4cnc.htm

[Bustem' Down]

Originally Posted by ylexot

No, there's no liberal bias at CNN...

Did anyone actually see it? I usually don't believe things like this on the internet because it's too easy to fake. Unless I get an eyewitness I say .

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by ylexot

No, there's no liberal bias at CNN...

Typical.

The left is all about freedom of speech - so long as it's speech they agree with. They're all about tolerance, unless you dare oppose them. If you disagree with them, tolerance and freedom go out the effing window.



I'm wondering what would be happening today if, say, Fox News pulled this stunt on, say, Hillary Clinton or any Democrat.

My guess is that the collective shriek that would inevitably ensue would shatter every single piece of glass in the northern hemisphere into sand.





Having said that... it is kinda funny.

[FromTexas (Premo)]

Looks like someone goofed on the subliminal message technique. Its only subliminal if they don't see it happening.

[ylexot (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Bustem' Down

Did anyone actually see it? I usually don't believe things like this on the internet because it's too easy to fake. Unless I get an eyewitness I say .

I doubt CNN would launch an investigation into something that didn't happen...

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Toxick

Typical.

The left is all about freedom of speech - so long as it's speech they agree with. They're all about tolerance, unless you dare oppose them. If you disagree with them, tolerance and freedom go out the effing window.

I'm pretty sure I've discussed this on here before....but the problem with the left is, they don't realize they're "left". They don't see themselves as the polar opposites of the "right" - they see themselves as the mainstream, even if polls don't agree. From their perspective, there's a large "middle" - where most people are - and there's those extremists on the right. There IS NO left. There's just "us" and the "extremists". And they're against "extremism" to the point where they don't believe extremists have an equal place at the table of public debate.

Kind of like having an open SOMD forum, so long as you don't get abusive, or try to advertise - then, freedom of speech is curtailed. They see themselves in the same situation - espousing the views of normal Americans, they have no problem stifling the views of "nutjobs" - conservatives. They don't have a problem with "liberal bias" on TV because to them, it's normal. They DON'T like Fox, because to them, it's like giving Nazis and skinheads their own network.

When elections don't go their way, they're incredulous. They're so convinced they match what the American voter thinks and feels, they're utterly convinced that the elections MUST have been stolen - because you can't lose an election where most of the voters are on your side already.

And they have something else which MOST conservatives don't possess - but some do. A moral attachment to issues. There is the wrong way, and there's my way. There are NOT three or four sides to an issue - there's the right way and everything is wrong - and therefore should never be entertained. (Admittedly, the religious right is often this way; but they don't comprise the majority of conservative thought). I heard a radio ad describing new legislation regarding credit unions. All I ever heard was that it WAS *WRONG*. No discussion. Just WRONG. Not "unwise, shortsighted, or impractical". Wrong. It's as though someone asked you, should you let your kids stay up past their beditme - or slaughter them with a butcher knife? Well, ONE is obviously wrong. And that's the point from which they argue.

I like, and generally prefer conservatives, partly because most of the ones I know don't have this - failing. They're pragmatists, not ideologues. It doesn't matter whether it's philosophically correct or not - it will, or won't work. Their attachment to issues doesn't have one right way - they'll entertain both sides IF one side can substantiate its validity.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Bustem' Down

Unless I get an eyewitness I say .

To you require an eyewitness for every news story before you determine whether it's real or not?

[tirdun]

Its a video overlay error on a live feed, not some "subliminal" message.

Underneath the giant X it reads "Transition begins after 5 frames of black"

The giant "X" is a key indicator to let the video guy know when to switch feeds. In other words, the transition from the current feed to the next feed should occur within the 5 frame delay to give someone else at CNN or a local feed time to do a wipe and break over to another line. In this case it got superimposed over the live feed, which happened to have the VP centered.

I... guess there could be some actual malice, although I fail to see how. The live feed is controlled by some board jockey at the White House (or capital, or wherever) or from CSPAN. So that board op, or one of the 3 or 4 others, could be purposfully screwing with the feed, but it really lacks any subtlety or any real connection to the guys in charge of CNN.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by tirdun

Its a video overlay error on a live feed, not some "subliminal" message.

The real story is just how careful CNN had better be to avoid charges of bias, considering their "news" reporting and the decidedly anti-Republican rhetoric they spew.

If you've been a liar all your life, you can't be surprised when nobody believes you on the rare instance you DO tell the truth.

Nome sane?