This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
swirlie · 31-35, F
CNN's little slogan, is that they are the (self-professed) "Most Trusted Name in News".
So, "most trusted" means what? I have followed CNN pretty much daily for a long time prior to the last Presidential Election, but ever since Trump won (..and won fair and square ..and damn all of you straight to hell who try to persuade me otherwise!), all that CNN now focuses on, is breaking news that happens faster than we can all comment on it here at SW.
What I find annoying about CNN these days, is that starting at 6pm, we have Wolfe Blitzer from 6 to 7pm. He talks objectively about what became speculated evidence in Trumpland each day. Wolfe Blitzer by the way, is the biological father of Donner and Blitzen Blitzer who are twins and who were both put up for adoption at age 13 respectively, which is a skeleton-in-the-closet of the Blitzer family 'underground' which most news network viewers don't know about Wolfe.
Then from 7 to 8pm, we have Erin Burnett who talks about what Wolf talked about for an hour and takes an entire hour to reiterate what Wolfe was bitching about.
Then from 8 to 9pm, we have Anderson Cooper who talks about what Wolfe and Erin talked about for 2 hours and takes an entire hour of speaking faster than he is able to actually read the monitor, to reiterate what Wolfe was bitching about and what Erin was so egocentric about.
Then from 9 to 10pm, we have Don Lemon who talks about what wolfe and Erin and Anderson were talking about for the previous 3 hours, asking the same questions that everyone else had written in their daily script, to only reiterate once again what Wolfe was bitching about, what Erin was egocentric about, what Anderson was stuttering and stammering with as he tried to keep up with the rotating flow of the monitor, to then add his own spin on what the news capsule of the day truly meant in reality, which of course is entirely based on Don's speculative, yet guarded approach to tomorrow.
The sad thing is, there has been nothing else for CNN to report around the world, except speculative conclusion each day of what Trump might have been eluding to when Trump either spoke in front of a camera or Tweeted from Florida.
I actually find it hard to listen to CNN anymore at anytime, regardless of who is speaking. It all sounds the same. It is a canned script. Everybody is drinking from the same jug of Kool-Aide, but they each have their own personal straw. And why does some deep-voiced man, whom I visualize in my mind's eye as looking like the midget behind the microphone in the Wizard of Oz movie, keep telling me after every station break that CNN is the "most trusted name in news"?
Which then leads me to agree with Jack about CNN getting "shuttered", but I don't think it will take a full two years to dissolve any credibility that the news network has acquired over the past 27 years. If Donald Trump lasts his full 4 year term (which I fully expect him to), does this then mean that CNN will continue with this climate they have imposed upon themselves for another three and a half years as well?
At what point will CNN actually start broadcasting the world news again, one wonders? And IF they suddenly started to do that, what would precipitate that sudden change for them? Piss-poor ratings perhaps? Or no ratings at all perhaps? Or they quickly get relegated to a Liberal-winged, news speculating network? Don't quite know! But holy shit, is that whole crew getting hard to listen to as they banter on like a bunch of old men bitching about a bunch of old ladies at a quilting bee!
So, "most trusted" means what? I have followed CNN pretty much daily for a long time prior to the last Presidential Election, but ever since Trump won (..and won fair and square ..and damn all of you straight to hell who try to persuade me otherwise!), all that CNN now focuses on, is breaking news that happens faster than we can all comment on it here at SW.
What I find annoying about CNN these days, is that starting at 6pm, we have Wolfe Blitzer from 6 to 7pm. He talks objectively about what became speculated evidence in Trumpland each day. Wolfe Blitzer by the way, is the biological father of Donner and Blitzen Blitzer who are twins and who were both put up for adoption at age 13 respectively, which is a skeleton-in-the-closet of the Blitzer family 'underground' which most news network viewers don't know about Wolfe.
Then from 7 to 8pm, we have Erin Burnett who talks about what Wolf talked about for an hour and takes an entire hour to reiterate what Wolfe was bitching about.
Then from 8 to 9pm, we have Anderson Cooper who talks about what Wolfe and Erin talked about for 2 hours and takes an entire hour of speaking faster than he is able to actually read the monitor, to reiterate what Wolfe was bitching about and what Erin was so egocentric about.
Then from 9 to 10pm, we have Don Lemon who talks about what wolfe and Erin and Anderson were talking about for the previous 3 hours, asking the same questions that everyone else had written in their daily script, to only reiterate once again what Wolfe was bitching about, what Erin was egocentric about, what Anderson was stuttering and stammering with as he tried to keep up with the rotating flow of the monitor, to then add his own spin on what the news capsule of the day truly meant in reality, which of course is entirely based on Don's speculative, yet guarded approach to tomorrow.
The sad thing is, there has been nothing else for CNN to report around the world, except speculative conclusion each day of what Trump might have been eluding to when Trump either spoke in front of a camera or Tweeted from Florida.
I actually find it hard to listen to CNN anymore at anytime, regardless of who is speaking. It all sounds the same. It is a canned script. Everybody is drinking from the same jug of Kool-Aide, but they each have their own personal straw. And why does some deep-voiced man, whom I visualize in my mind's eye as looking like the midget behind the microphone in the Wizard of Oz movie, keep telling me after every station break that CNN is the "most trusted name in news"?
Which then leads me to agree with Jack about CNN getting "shuttered", but I don't think it will take a full two years to dissolve any credibility that the news network has acquired over the past 27 years. If Donald Trump lasts his full 4 year term (which I fully expect him to), does this then mean that CNN will continue with this climate they have imposed upon themselves for another three and a half years as well?
At what point will CNN actually start broadcasting the world news again, one wonders? And IF they suddenly started to do that, what would precipitate that sudden change for them? Piss-poor ratings perhaps? Or no ratings at all perhaps? Or they quickly get relegated to a Liberal-winged, news speculating network? Don't quite know! But holy shit, is that whole crew getting hard to listen to as they banter on like a bunch of old men bitching about a bunch of old ladies at a quilting bee!
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
@swirlie: IKR? It used to be that CNN reported some facts. Now they are fighting off reality and pretending they were not wrong not involved in the Mrs Clinton fraud. Why not admit it, apologize, being in a new crew behind the scenes and in front of the cameras and report factual news. It's an empty vacuum waiting to be properly filled.
therighttothink50 · 56-60, M
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
@therighttothink50:
@swirlie:
I think the voice is James Earl Jones also the Darth Vader voice. Once a respected actor and public figure.
They are practicing the art of telling the same lies often enough thst the lies become truth?
@swirlie:
I think the voice is James Earl Jones also the Darth Vader voice. Once a respected actor and public figure.
They are practicing the art of telling the same lies often enough thst the lies become truth?
SW-User
@swirlie: [i]What's this about Wolfe fathering Santa's reindeer?![/i]
You make a cogent point, but unfortunately it's not the lament of only CNN but most all other news channels as well. When we decided to take the nightly news into the world of 24/7, everything changed. It's a big world and there's [i]plenty[/i] of news to cover, but America wanted more of what it already got. So there is no meaning to "The Most Trusted Name," "Fair and Balanced" or any other slogan.
That translates into 24-hour "breaking news," multiple anchors covering the same topics, unique and inane "spin" on a story in order to tease out another talking point, panels of 10,000 and so on.
If we're going to take a news story and stretch it from 3 minutes to 6 days, there's gonna be a lot of fluff. It's not CNN's fault (though they did pioneer the format); in this culture of short attention spans and instant gratification, ratings-driven journalism has to garner and keep the attention of the public. If people stop watching, the format changes.
You make a cogent point, but unfortunately it's not the lament of only CNN but most all other news channels as well. When we decided to take the nightly news into the world of 24/7, everything changed. It's a big world and there's [i]plenty[/i] of news to cover, but America wanted more of what it already got. So there is no meaning to "The Most Trusted Name," "Fair and Balanced" or any other slogan.
That translates into 24-hour "breaking news," multiple anchors covering the same topics, unique and inane "spin" on a story in order to tease out another talking point, panels of 10,000 and so on.
If we're going to take a news story and stretch it from 3 minutes to 6 days, there's gonna be a lot of fluff. It's not CNN's fault (though they did pioneer the format); in this culture of short attention spans and instant gratification, ratings-driven journalism has to garner and keep the attention of the public. If people stop watching, the format changes.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
@WhisperingBanshee:
@swirlie:
Not CNN's fault for doing what they do? I suppose it's not their fault that Mrs Clinton, Podesta, Brazile and DWS all blatantly lie and got caught in writing?
@swirlie:
Not CNN's fault for doing what they do? I suppose it's not their fault that Mrs Clinton, Podesta, Brazile and DWS all blatantly lie and got caught in writing?
swirlie · 31-35, F
@WhisperingBanshee:
Yes, it's true... Donner Blitzer and Blitzen Blitzer are actually the illegitimate twins of Wolfe Blitzer. As well, Wolfe Blitzer is actually Santa's former brother-in-law from the marriage that went south from the incident resulting in the untimely arrival of the Donner and Blitzen twins, which is well-known fact way up here north of the Border in the hinterland known only by locals, as "Toronto". Translated into English, the word "Toronto" is a Native Indian village name meaning, "The Big Smoke". Can you see how the once crumbling mosaic is finally piecing itself back together now?
The problem is, Donner and Blitzen both look like their biological father and not at all like their biological mother, which is why their mother abandoned them as teenagers at their respective ages of 13, thinking the stunned little buggers would never find their way off the ice flow which she lured them both onto in the dead of night during Spring migration.
As fate would have it, they both did, which is why Wolfe ended up with the pair in his care after a Park Ranger intervened, coincidently recognizing both of them as being biologically related to a CNN employee, thus reuniting the trio despite Wolfe's unrelenting denial that they both look just like him.
Sadly, Donner and Blitzen now live with Wolfe's own biological mother, Helga Blitzer, in her modest basement apartment in Greater Buffalo where she lovingly supports Wolfe's offspring financially from the avails of her meager pension during their off-season as sleigh-pullers for Santa, allegedly going-it-alone without Wolfe's assistance.
Their dysfunctional family situation also lends credence to the Mohawk Native Indian theory of why Wolfe Blitzer always looks so sly and guilty while in front of a camera, regardless of what benign drama he is manifesting from the truth. He just can't seem to shake it. And now, you know the rest of his story.
Yes, it's true... Donner Blitzer and Blitzen Blitzer are actually the illegitimate twins of Wolfe Blitzer. As well, Wolfe Blitzer is actually Santa's former brother-in-law from the marriage that went south from the incident resulting in the untimely arrival of the Donner and Blitzen twins, which is well-known fact way up here north of the Border in the hinterland known only by locals, as "Toronto". Translated into English, the word "Toronto" is a Native Indian village name meaning, "The Big Smoke". Can you see how the once crumbling mosaic is finally piecing itself back together now?
The problem is, Donner and Blitzen both look like their biological father and not at all like their biological mother, which is why their mother abandoned them as teenagers at their respective ages of 13, thinking the stunned little buggers would never find their way off the ice flow which she lured them both onto in the dead of night during Spring migration.
As fate would have it, they both did, which is why Wolfe ended up with the pair in his care after a Park Ranger intervened, coincidently recognizing both of them as being biologically related to a CNN employee, thus reuniting the trio despite Wolfe's unrelenting denial that they both look just like him.
Sadly, Donner and Blitzen now live with Wolfe's own biological mother, Helga Blitzer, in her modest basement apartment in Greater Buffalo where she lovingly supports Wolfe's offspring financially from the avails of her meager pension during their off-season as sleigh-pullers for Santa, allegedly going-it-alone without Wolfe's assistance.
Their dysfunctional family situation also lends credence to the Mohawk Native Indian theory of why Wolfe Blitzer always looks so sly and guilty while in front of a camera, regardless of what benign drama he is manifesting from the truth. He just can't seem to shake it. And now, you know the rest of his story.
SW-User
@swirlie: Well, I look forward to 672 hours of continuous coverage on this, complete with holodecks, on-site reporting and constant updates via social media! Oh, and discussion panel of at least 22 anchors and pundits.
swirlie · 31-35, F
@WhisperingBanshee:
Oh, I've already got that all set up! Just wait until this Comey investigation thingie is all over, cause you ain't seen nothin' yet! Wolfe has a few antlers in the closet that are going to come out, believe me!
Oh, I've already got that all set up! Just wait until this Comey investigation thingie is all over, cause you ain't seen nothin' yet! Wolfe has a few antlers in the closet that are going to come out, believe me!
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
@swirlie: you think it will ever be over? I think it lasts the whole eight years.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
@swirlie: excellent material. Excellent!'
swirlie · 31-35, F
@Jackjjacksonjr:
Thank you, Jack!
Thank you, Jack!
swirlie · 31-35, F
@Jackjjacksonjr:
I agree with you, Jack. It will never actually be "over". Let's face it, they are still bringing up the actual tape recorded conversations on National TV today, between Richard Nixon and Casper Whine-burger regarding the details of WaterGate. Richard Nixon has been dead for years and that whole fake CIA break-in mock-up between Nixon and the FBI Director, happened 44 years ago. Vietnam was still 2 years from over and draft-dodgers were still skipping across the Border at Detroit and setting up camp in Southern Ontario so their son's wouldn't get drafted fresh out of high school, just to put a compassionate element of perspective on the time that has elapsed since then.
Yet the news media is somehow trying to co-relate those circumstances back in the day, to what is happening today and at a bazaar time in our evolution where high schools have seen their way clear to justify an additional gendered washroom arrangement for those teenagers (who coincidentally would now be of Vietnam draft age), who still have not yet decided what sex they were actually born with or how they will deal with those emotionally complex issues when they actually come to terms with themselves. Yet for those who cannot decide for themselves, our school system in Canada today, provides a special washroom for the yet un-decided.
Somehow, I don't think those same gender issues were truly an issue back in the days of Vietnam, Nixon and `73 Camaros. To further put this in perspective, a car-nut motorcycle mechanic friend of mine who services my bike, reminds me on occasion that 1972 was the last year a chrome bumper was used on a Corvette Stingray ...and Nixon was doing his thing at that same time in which front chrome bumpers were standard equipment on Vettes! Have you ever seen a road-worthy Corvette with even a chrome-colored radio antenna, let alone chrome anything?
Yet, here is CNN today, still trying to correlate a similarity in the Presidency from a time when Corvettes still had a chromed front bumper and cost $6000 Canadian to buy brand-NEW, to the current times of a modern-day Presidency where Apple iPhones take the place of stenographers and Underwood typewriters of 1973!
The only similarity between the time of Nixon and the time of Trump, is that both Nixon and Trump had/have Air Force One at their disposal, which is the Presidential airplane and which happens to be a 747. The only difference is, back in Nixon's day, the 747 was brand new aviation innovation, the absolute answer to modern day flight and was right off the assembly line.
Today, that same old 747 is still being used as 'Air Force One, even though it is categorically obsolete, commercial airlines can no longer order new ones and Boeing stopped making them over 15 years ago. Parts are still available if something falls off for no apparent reason, except the 8-Track entertainment unit is no longer available. Go easy on the tapes, kids!
Why can each Presidential 'story' not stand on it's own merit? Why does CNN need to convince us of some similarity extracted from the Nixon files, to add an element of validity to today's misadventures within the White House?
What I honestly believe, is that if President Trump is impeached over this stuff, people who are not even born yet will be reading about these White House escapades 44 years from now.
If Trump is NOT impeached, those same people will be reading about this same White House adventure 44 years from now. But nothing will really change in government between now and 44 years from now, just as nothing has really changed since the time of Nixon and 44 years later. It's all the same stuff, the only difference is, in Nixon's time, an 8-Track entertainment unit was optional equipment in a new car.
Today, an 8-Track is no longer available except on E-bay, even if that issue was a deal-breaker at the Dealership. Will it all end? No, I don't think so. Only the way in which music is recorded and distributed will change, making today's iPods look like miniature tape cassettes of yesterday. Regardless of the times, when the music stops, never be the one standing without a chair!
I agree with you, Jack. It will never actually be "over". Let's face it, they are still bringing up the actual tape recorded conversations on National TV today, between Richard Nixon and Casper Whine-burger regarding the details of WaterGate. Richard Nixon has been dead for years and that whole fake CIA break-in mock-up between Nixon and the FBI Director, happened 44 years ago. Vietnam was still 2 years from over and draft-dodgers were still skipping across the Border at Detroit and setting up camp in Southern Ontario so their son's wouldn't get drafted fresh out of high school, just to put a compassionate element of perspective on the time that has elapsed since then.
Yet the news media is somehow trying to co-relate those circumstances back in the day, to what is happening today and at a bazaar time in our evolution where high schools have seen their way clear to justify an additional gendered washroom arrangement for those teenagers (who coincidentally would now be of Vietnam draft age), who still have not yet decided what sex they were actually born with or how they will deal with those emotionally complex issues when they actually come to terms with themselves. Yet for those who cannot decide for themselves, our school system in Canada today, provides a special washroom for the yet un-decided.
Somehow, I don't think those same gender issues were truly an issue back in the days of Vietnam, Nixon and `73 Camaros. To further put this in perspective, a car-nut motorcycle mechanic friend of mine who services my bike, reminds me on occasion that 1972 was the last year a chrome bumper was used on a Corvette Stingray ...and Nixon was doing his thing at that same time in which front chrome bumpers were standard equipment on Vettes! Have you ever seen a road-worthy Corvette with even a chrome-colored radio antenna, let alone chrome anything?
Yet, here is CNN today, still trying to correlate a similarity in the Presidency from a time when Corvettes still had a chromed front bumper and cost $6000 Canadian to buy brand-NEW, to the current times of a modern-day Presidency where Apple iPhones take the place of stenographers and Underwood typewriters of 1973!
The only similarity between the time of Nixon and the time of Trump, is that both Nixon and Trump had/have Air Force One at their disposal, which is the Presidential airplane and which happens to be a 747. The only difference is, back in Nixon's day, the 747 was brand new aviation innovation, the absolute answer to modern day flight and was right off the assembly line.
Today, that same old 747 is still being used as 'Air Force One, even though it is categorically obsolete, commercial airlines can no longer order new ones and Boeing stopped making them over 15 years ago. Parts are still available if something falls off for no apparent reason, except the 8-Track entertainment unit is no longer available. Go easy on the tapes, kids!
Why can each Presidential 'story' not stand on it's own merit? Why does CNN need to convince us of some similarity extracted from the Nixon files, to add an element of validity to today's misadventures within the White House?
What I honestly believe, is that if President Trump is impeached over this stuff, people who are not even born yet will be reading about these White House escapades 44 years from now.
If Trump is NOT impeached, those same people will be reading about this same White House adventure 44 years from now. But nothing will really change in government between now and 44 years from now, just as nothing has really changed since the time of Nixon and 44 years later. It's all the same stuff, the only difference is, in Nixon's time, an 8-Track entertainment unit was optional equipment in a new car.
Today, an 8-Track is no longer available except on E-bay, even if that issue was a deal-breaker at the Dealership. Will it all end? No, I don't think so. Only the way in which music is recorded and distributed will change, making today's iPods look like miniature tape cassettes of yesterday. Regardless of the times, when the music stops, never be the one standing without a chair!
swirlie · 31-35, F
@Jackjjacksonjr:
I agree, Jack. I actually think it backfired on CNN. Once they started cannibalizing Trump, they got in so deep from totally biased reporting, that there was/is no turning back.
CNN has to fight this one to the end, or lose all credibility for anything they have ever alleged against Trump. If Trump is impeached, CNN will feel that they served their country well. If Trump is not impeached, they will look like an International Fool's Network when Trump carries on with his agenda, not missing a beat after the Congressional Hearings prove absolutely nothing.
But what does CNN do then? What happens if everything they ever said about Trump was deemed a mute point, circumstantial, or purely bogus? They will have to change their slogan for sure, no longer being publicly perceived as the "Most Trusted News".
I agree, Jack. I actually think it backfired on CNN. Once they started cannibalizing Trump, they got in so deep from totally biased reporting, that there was/is no turning back.
CNN has to fight this one to the end, or lose all credibility for anything they have ever alleged against Trump. If Trump is impeached, CNN will feel that they served their country well. If Trump is not impeached, they will look like an International Fool's Network when Trump carries on with his agenda, not missing a beat after the Congressional Hearings prove absolutely nothing.
But what does CNN do then? What happens if everything they ever said about Trump was deemed a mute point, circumstantial, or purely bogus? They will have to change their slogan for sure, no longer being publicly perceived as the "Most Trusted News".
swirlie · 31-35, F
@Jackjjacksonjr:
Good point! A lie must be practiced over and over again to give it's presentation an element of undisputed truth, yet truth itself is always indisputable and requires no practice.
Good point! A lie must be practiced over and over again to give it's presentation an element of undisputed truth, yet truth itself is always indisputable and requires no practice.
swirlie · 31-35, F
@Jackjjacksonjr:
Where I think CNN is walking a fine line these days, is by almost forcing their guest speakers to say things the way in which CNN wants something portrayed to their viewing audience, when in fact, most of CNN's guest speakers are not actually professionally qualified to publicly state anything the way in which CNN wants the news conveyed to and digested by Joe Q. Public.
CNN frequently attempts to act as both Judge and Jury, long before any newsworthy issue arrives in Court. Rather than just reporting the news at hand, CNN attempts to create the news before it even becomes fact. Which news then is factual, but then again, how did the eventual truth get spun to fit-in with their original portrayal of the story? That is the question!
Where I think CNN is walking a fine line these days, is by almost forcing their guest speakers to say things the way in which CNN wants something portrayed to their viewing audience, when in fact, most of CNN's guest speakers are not actually professionally qualified to publicly state anything the way in which CNN wants the news conveyed to and digested by Joe Q. Public.
CNN frequently attempts to act as both Judge and Jury, long before any newsworthy issue arrives in Court. Rather than just reporting the news at hand, CNN attempts to create the news before it even becomes fact. Which news then is factual, but then again, how did the eventual truth get spun to fit-in with their original portrayal of the story? That is the question!
therighttothink50 · 56-60, M
@swirlie:
“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -JFK-
[Commencement Address at Yale University, June 11 1962]”
-John F. Kennedy-
“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -JFK-
[Commencement Address at Yale University, June 11 1962]”
-John F. Kennedy-
swirlie · 31-35, F
Interesting quote, but not really sure any of that insight did JFK very much good at the end of the day.
This quote leads one to wonder if these insights came to JFK's mind the morning after his fiasco with the Bay of Pigs, or had he pondered all of this beforehand?
What these insights were suggesting to him is very true indeed. Unfortunately, JFK was not on the same page as those he worked with in the Kennedy Administration, with all of this knowledge he intuitively carried in his back pocket. He understood the truth, but those around him were dealing from that proverbial 'dark place in the deck of cards' that this quote was specifically made in reference to.
Thanks for correlating J.F. Kennedy's words to the questions I had raised within my post.
This quote leads one to wonder if these insights came to JFK's mind the morning after his fiasco with the Bay of Pigs, or had he pondered all of this beforehand?
What these insights were suggesting to him is very true indeed. Unfortunately, JFK was not on the same page as those he worked with in the Kennedy Administration, with all of this knowledge he intuitively carried in his back pocket. He understood the truth, but those around him were dealing from that proverbial 'dark place in the deck of cards' that this quote was specifically made in reference to.
Thanks for correlating J.F. Kennedy's words to the questions I had raised within my post.