Now Fox News Controls CNN!!!

B

Bruzilla

Guest
http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-09-14-media-mix_x.htm

Christiane Amanpour says CNN "was intimidated" by the Bush administration and Fox News.

On last week's Topic A With Tina Brown on CNBC, Brown, the former Talk magazine editor, asked comedian Al Franken, former Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clarke and Amanpour if "we in the media, as much as in the administration, drank the Kool-Aid when it came to the war."

Said Amanpour: "I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did."

Brown then asked Amanpour if there was any story during the war that she couldn't report.

"It's not a question of couldn't do it, it's a question of tone," Amanpour said. "It's a question of being rigorous. It's really a question of really asking the questions. All of the entire body politic in my view, whether it's the administration, the intelligence, the journalists, whoever, did not ask enough questions, for instance, about weapons of mass destruction. I mean, it looks like this was disinformation at the highest levels."

Clarke called the disinformation charge "categorically untrue" and added, "In my experience, a little over two years at the Pentagon, I never saw them (the media) holding back. I saw them reporting the good, the bad and the in between."

Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."

I just love that last comment!

:clap: :clap: :clap:
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
"Self-muzzled"
"Self-censorship"
"intimidated"

Yeah. That's journalistic integrity. I thought it was called cowardice.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Wow. The world we...

...live in, huh?

This is why the net is such a great resource. It is now possible to find what this person said 5 years ago or that administration said 10 years or 10 minutes ago and learn the facts undiluted from any perspective or spin left or right or anywhere in between.

The simple fact is that commercial news sources, CNN, FOX, the networks, all censor the news because they deal with time constraints. How they censor it, left or right may be interesting but they all HAVE to do it.

So, now, with the web and the ability to hold people accountable for how they spun, comparing what they reported with what they didn't, comes a lot of pressure to be as accurate as possible because it can't just drift away like it did up until about 5 years ago.

Bruz, that last quote...

"Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."

...is cute and all but it lays bare the institutional mindset of so much of the major media: Choosing sides.

Good news reporting would come off as sounding like 'spokesperson' for both sides, reporting what they said. Then, it would be followed by what both sides did and are doing.

Imagine: Millions of people the world over wandering around without an opinion because nobody told them what to think.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
I read it as just another example of how liberals detest the FNC's "fair and balanced" approach. Amanpour probably would have loved to only report the negatives of the war, but with more and more viewers watching FNC they would know that CNN wasn't reporting both sides of the story. :biggrin:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Selective memory, Ms. Christine. I remember:
  • Extensive coverage of the "peace" protestors, but nary a word about the polls, which showed that the vast majority of Americans were in favor of the war.
  • The rise of Janeane Garofalo, previously a barely heard of comedian, to foreign policy expert.
  • Watching the UN weapons inspectors give their report and watching Gen. Brooks giving the daily briefing. Then watching the CNN-ites dismantle and misreport everything that was said.
  • Seeing the World News Tonight special report, entitled "When Diplomacy Fails".
The list goes on but it seemed to me that the only media self-muzzling that went on was when CNN wouldn't report some of Saddam's more heinous acts against his citizens.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
I don't think CNN really mis-reported anything, rather they just wanted to report stories that supported their view of the war. Unfortunately, since FNC reports everything, it would become real obvious if some news groups... like say CNN... were just reporting negative stories. Amanpour made her name in news by being the first reporter on the scene to stick her camera into the face of a dead child in some war-torn country or another. She was always big on reporting body counts but a little slow on reporting on why the casualties were coming. Maybe it was another of those "We had to report the Dictator's side of things or else we might have been in danger" situations CNN is famous for.
 

Penn

Dancing Up A Storm
Originally posted by Bruzilla
http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-09-14-media-mix_x.htm

Christiane Amanpour says CNN "was intimidated" by the Bush administration and Fox News.

"It's not a question of couldn't do it, it's a question of tone," Amanpour said. "It's a question of being rigorous. It's really a question of really asking the questions. All of the entire body politic in my view, whether it's the administration, the intelligence, the journalists, whoever, did not ask enough questions, for instance, about weapons of mass destruction. I mean, it looks like this was disinformation at the highest levels."

Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."

I just love that last comment!

:clap: :clap: :clap:
:cool: I watched Ms. Christine years ago reporting during Desert Storm and got the same impression of her style: just one notch below the level raised by Peter Arnett.
Her slant seemed to be barely neutral - leaning towards negativism as to the coalition's prosecution of the war.

As to her quote about not enough questions being asked about WMDs: can she posssibly be serious?
From before the time Congress passed legislation allowing the administration the authority to invade Iraq, was there an hour that passed on TV/Radio/press news that didn't include questions about them?(many times I thought to myself "If I hear one more question about WMDs........!)

Or, is Ms. Amanpour tossing sour grapes because SHE did not get the opportunity to ask them, to whomever SHE wished?
(personally, I can't see that, but you never know, given some people's egos.)
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I hear yah...

I read it as just another example of how liberals detest

But what interests me is the WHY? Frank Sesno had a show a few years back on CNN and did a half hour with Christine Whitman and I can't remember who, about liberal bias.

Frank was almost incredulous at the concept. Christine is nobodys load mouth advocate and even she upset him.

There are the insane examples like Dan "I'm just a newspaperman" Rather who does DNC fundraisers and can't understand why anyone would think him biased, but, by and large there are serious blinders about bias.

Anyone who brings the message, like Bernie Goldberg and Fox are just reviled.

So, vast left wing conspiracy or are the people who bring us the news just that stupid? Somewhere in between?

The Washington Post has editorialized strongly in favor of the pre-emptive war with Iraq for two years but runs front page after front page that would tell you things are going horrible over there and nobody knows what they are doing.

More people per day are murdered in the papers hometown than troops in a volitile armed region and here they are left mostly faceless black kids until this white kid who got killed in Alexandria over the weekend. Isn't THAT racist on some level?

School Vouchers are getting play. NEW money is being allocated to try vouchers in DC, a place that already ranks near the top in per student spending and people are going apopleptic about even THAT money not going into the great sinkhole. This is simply a union issue. There is NO intelligent argument against using public money to help families try and go to better schools.

Taxes. NEVER does the media argue over what is an appropriate amount for government to spend. Tax cuts always go to the rich and the money dissapears off the face of the earth.

The media is stuck appealing to a large market of people who always blame America first. Who HATE religion (unless it is attacking the US). Who HATE rich people, unless they claim to be for this or that and these people loath the military and guns. They are all for abortion choice at public expense, just don't educate it with public money it if you keep it.

FOX and just about every radio station in the country have found that there is another market.

There is a wondeful new History Channel special on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The essence is that using the bombs PROLONGED the war, were not neccessary to stop the war, were only used to keep the Soviets out of Japan, were only used to scare the Soviets, were only used because we had them and they cost a lot. They basically have, person after person, especially those associated with their building, say that it was criminal to use them.

None of this, not once, looks at it from how it was beneficial to the US and world peace and freedom for so many people. Only our 'badness'.

Lotta people think that way I guess.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Re: I hear yah...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
Lotta people think that way I guess.
Apparently not enough because "they" are proposing new FCC regulations that say for every Rush Limbaugh, there must be a Phil Donohue. The reason for this is that liberal talk shows don't do very well in the ratings, which supposedly "violates" the fairness and balance of our media. If this passes, it means that no matter how crappy the ratings of a liberal talk show, they must remain on the air. OR "they'll" start axing conservative talk shows to create that balance they crave.

I'll find more information about this and get back with you.
 

Penn

Dancing Up A Storm
I would like to see....

:biggrin: ...Ms Amanpour on the O'Reilly Factor one evening for an in-depth interview with Bill. It just might be an interesting 15 minutes.
 

Bertha Venation

New Member
Re: I hear yah...

Just this one point of history re: the bomb.
Originally posted by Larry Gude
There is a wondeful new History Channel special on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The essence is that using the bombs PROLONGED the war, were not neccessary to stop the war, were only used to keep the Soviets out of Japan, were only used to scare the Soviets, were only used because we had them and they cost a lot. They basically have, person after person, especially those associated with their building, say that it was criminal to use them.

None of this, not once, looks at it from how it was beneficial to the US and world peace and freedom for so many people. Only our 'badness'.

Lotta people think that way I guess.
I haven't watched the special in question, didn't even know about it. I can't know if what you write is truly what the HC is saying. (Please, no offense is meant here; I'm not calling you a liar.)

No matter what the HC says: despite the reasons for or against building it, and intent, evil or good, of the men in the War Dept who pushed for building it, anyone who's read history knows why Pres. Truman used the bomb in 1945: to end the war. The war would've been prolonged if he had not used it.

A massive invasion of Japan was in the offing if somthing drastic wasn't done quickly. Hundreds of thousands more allied and Japanese troops would have died. The bomb became ready; Truman said "do it." He was judged for it for the rest of his life, and that judgement will continue forever.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I LOVE the net...

the things I learn...

The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

...315 exempted news programs.

"Tonight on CNN, Judy Woodruff reports. "Bias mias. We can say anything we effing want! The law says so!"
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Bru, I stand behind my use of the word "mis-reporting". I sat there and watched Hans Blix and Co. giving the weapons report to the UN Security Council, live and uncensored. They, to a man, were specific that they found all the parts necessary to build a nuclear weapon. They were specific that they found a large quantity of mustard gas. They also said specifically that many weapons previously reported had mysteriously disappeared. Then Hans did the talk show circuit and refuted every word of his testimony. The media, who certainly got a transcript of the testimony, didn't say a word about this turnaround and jumped right on with the "See!?! No weapons were found!"

I didn't watch the last SoU but I did see a complete transcript of it. Nowhere in the transcript does Bush say that Nigeria sold yellow-cake uranium to Iraq. However, that's the exact phrase that has been attributed to him. The White House even went so far as to actually apologize for something the President did not say, the media flak was so overwhelming.

Now the media is going so far as to "report" that Colin Powell faked documents and bill of lading to implicate Iraq with purchases of WMD parts.

Maybe I should have used the phrase "outright lies" instead of "mis-reporting". I'm not crazy and I believe what I see and hear for myself.
 

Bertha Venation

New Member
Originally posted by vraiblonde
Maybe I should have used the phrase "outright lies" instead of "mis-reporting". I'm not crazy and I believe what I see and hear for myself.
This helps to confirm my solid belief that we (the generic "we"--the people of the world) are more alike than different. I can't prove it, but IMO more people think for themselves than do not.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Bertha...

...no offense taken.

You has a Truman fan, might wanna check it out. Your boy get's attacked.

One guy specifically makes the argument that had "Give 'em day Glo" Harry not said 'no' to the Emporer Hirohito staying on as the leader of Japan that he, the emporer would have lead the people to surrender early in the spring of '45.

Another points out the Sov advance into Manchuria.

Truman changed his mind later in the summer about Hirohito's future employment and the argument is made that that, not the bombs, ended the war. It argues that Truman specifically delayed the end until the bomb was ready so we could scare the Sovs, end the war and make it clear that WE were the man to everybody all in one fell swoop.

I, personally, take all anti-nuke WWII wishcraft for what it is; the genesis of the 'blame America first' guilt complex. Hell, I had a 10th grade civics teacher contort reality into proving that we, not the Japanese, CAUSED the attack at Pearl Harbour.

Anyway, the HC special is enjoyable and educating, as most all HS stuff is. It helps me understand my fellow man; some of them are simply crazy.
 

Bertha Venation

New Member
Re: Bertha...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
Anyway, the HC special is enjoyable and educating, as most all HS stuff is. It helps me understand my fellow man; some of them are simply crazy.
I agree on all counts. And I dig the HC--even more since they quit running the inane commercials featuring R. Lee Ermey.
 
Top