PDA

View Full Version : Anybody is watching CNN??



Jet
21-08-2003, 00:09
How do expats experience CNN information, in particular regarding Russia? While some times they manage to hit the right botton, in general it is just pathetic. How do they manage to maintain such a low standard of journalism for such long period of time? Their research is usually very thin, while their audience reach abroad is wide. The image of Russia that they have consistently created abroad leaves a lot to be desired.

neilmcg
21-08-2003, 01:41
There would be no point in watching CNN to find out about Russia, if you already live in Russia :-) Watch the Russian TV channels instead. It could be interesting to watch CNN as a comparative study, to see how the same stories are reported (if at all, of course) there?

N.
(never watches tv, ever)

Jet
21-08-2003, 03:46
Many intellectuals in the West, those who some times watch TV, especially in Europe, realize that CNN is not the best sourse of information. However, CNN represents a certain mentality and modus operandi that are prolific in the West, and can be described in one word "briefly". These pop-news culture works like a fast-food outlet, people expect one-liners, nobody wants to see the complexity of the situation.

neilmcg
21-08-2003, 12:27
>> These pop-news culture works like a fast-food outlet, people expect one-liners, nobody wants to see the complexity of the situation. <<

Even so, I would defend CNN, on the basis that in many countries where it is shown (especially its country of origin) it is better than anything else.

Also, if you want a general round-up of world news (rather than specialist reporting on Russia, or Singapore, or Germany) it will inevitably be brief in detail on each individual place.

CNN is the only American channel which isn't deliberately running stories like "France - the dog-poo capital of Europe" at the moment.

It may not be great, but if I took CNN away from you and gave you Fox News or Sky News, you'd be begging to have CNN back :-)

N.

Broadmoor Bob
21-08-2003, 13:06
Originally posted by Jet Li
Many intellectuals in the West, those who some times watch TV, especially in Europe, realize that CNN is not the best sourse of information. However, CNN represents a certain mentality and modus operandi that are prolific in the West, and can be described in one word "briefly". These pop-news culture works like a fast-food outlet, people expect one-liners, nobody wants to see the complexity of the situation.

Exactly. It is McNews - I don't care for TV much, but I use their website on weekday mornings before I leave for the office, just to see if anything important is going on.

Jet
21-08-2003, 13:33
2neilmcg

Can not diasagree with you on FOX news rubbish, when I visited the US from Europe (I lived in Russia for a long time before that) for the first time I was stunned by the information americans receive, seems like the US were the center of the world. But when I watch CNN, it is also not that often, I realize that more likely that is how the policy-makers in the US think. When there was a Nord-Ost crises in Moscow CNN has called those terrorists anything, but terrorists, rebells, separatists, fighters, and my favorite -- armed decedents. Coincidentally, that the how the official Washington also first called, I mean different names but never terrorists. I presume that it all comes from the manner in which this conflict is analysed in the CNN or the West, it should be in one-liners and briefly. But there are no short answers on Russia.

neilmcg
21-08-2003, 13:50
>> CNN has called those terrorists anything, but terrorists <<

Well, personally I think that CNN has reasonable standards of reporting. The word "terrorist" has no certain parameters, and can be used about almost anyone. However, you could factually call them "armed hostage-takers" and no-one could disagree with that description.

Personally I would say that the hostage-takers at Dubrovka WERE terrorists, but that is only my opinion. A little careful professionalism in reporting sets a good example if it does not mis-represent the situation :)

For example - in China, the banned Falun-Gong organisation is consistently referred to as a "terrorist" group in State media, even though they have never done anything except peaceful protests and jamming a few Chinese news-stations to Taiwan.

I would greatly prefer to get a "vanilla-flavour" version of the actual facts, and make up my own mind about who is the terrorist. There is a difference between News Reporting and Editorial Comment, and I'd agree with you that this difference is being lost in the trend to manufacture "McNews".

N.

Broadmoor Bob
21-08-2003, 14:20
Still, as far as McNews goes, it ain't bad. The only way to really get a perspective is to read four or five different sources, including at least one leftist and at least one rightist source. That is best suited to an occasional cold, snowy, dreary, miserable Sunday morning in the winter - when the news is just what you need to feel even more miserable ;). What's more, the multiple sources will leave you more confused than you were to begin with!

zerkalo
21-08-2003, 16:40
Yawn. I don't watch the local channels so can somebody fill me on what dog kennel ol Pooty-poot opened today?

neilmcg
21-08-2003, 16:48
>> I don't watch the local channels so can somebody fill me on what dog kennel ol Pooty-poot opened today? <<

He didn't - he went on holiday to the Altay Kray today (wise man, excellent place to go on holiday).

If you cannot stand the local media either (and I deeply sympathise, stories about whether it is legal to name a new strain of tomato "The Putin" are hard to take on a constant basis) you can subcribe to Johnson's Russia List, and let David Johnson pick the best stuff for you to skim? It's free, comes once-daily in your email, but if you like it DJ asks for a $20-30 voluntary subscription.

Personally I get my daily news-blast from Radio Svoboda in the car on the way to the office.

N.

Jet
21-08-2003, 17:53
Well, as far as chechens at Dubrovka, from the very beginning there should have been no doubt that these were terrorists. Eight months after the event the US government did confirm it by placing a man behind the attack -- Mr. Basaev -- on the official list of terrorists threatening the US security. That is what the Russians were saying all along, for the last four years. Similary, they pointed that these were real international terrorists. It will probably take another suicide bombing in Iraq to see how painfully it resembles the attacks in Mozdok or Vladikavkaz.

I fail to see Falun Gong parallel, these guys are not armed.

Well, to be honest CNN is good to grab the headlines, still Euronews is better, further analysis is for the BBC account, and as far as in-depth coverage and research on Russia, Germans, French, Belgians, Italians, Dutch are head and shoulders above the americans.

neilmcg
21-08-2003, 18:07
>> I fail to see Falun Gong parallel, these guys are not armed. <<


'Zackly so :) For a News Agency to say someone is a "terrorist" does not make him/her one. Similarly, the supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma are always referred to as "terrorists" by the regime there, even though they have have never used violence as a means of expressing their opposition to the Junta.

My point in saying this is that calling someone a "terrorist" tells us nothing. You could calll a chess-player a terrorist on this basis. You were complaining that CNN failed to name the Chechens at Dubrovka as "terrorists". I am saying it is better to use a description which relates to what they have DONE, and not what we THINK of them? So you could correctly call them kidnappers, gunmen, hostage-takers, etc.

It is not the job of News Agencies to tell us what we are to THINK of the news, it's their job to evaluate what IS news, and to give us its details.

N.

Jet
21-08-2003, 18:25
Theoretically, yes. But I picked one concrete example, and it escapes me how can you compare peacfull even pacifists protests, such as San Sun Chin in Burma, movement with what it is now internationally recognized as chechen terrrorism supported from abroad. As I mentioned CNN is probably the worst of all western news agencies as far as research is concerned.

Ned Kelly
21-08-2003, 18:29
I had CNN for a while until it became too tedious and then figured Russian TV wasn't much worse. But after a few sessions of 20 minutes of Putin in a 30 min broadcast I've had to give up on that too. Now I just read news on the net. Thank God for the net in fact.

neilmcg
21-08-2003, 19:06
>> it escapes me how can you compare peacfull even pacifists protests, such as San Sun Chin in Burma <<

And that is my point. I am not comparing them. I think they are absolutely different, and should never be compared.

But the MEDIA have used the same term "terrorist" about both groups, and for an uninformed audience who is not aware of the depths of the issued, some people may even be deceived into believing the two groups are comparable. This is, of course, the aim of describing the Falun Gong as terrorists - the PRC hopes to discredit the organisation internationally by repeating this accusation on every possible (and impossible) occasion.

The fault comes with your term "terrorist". By itself, it means nothing. It can be a bully at school, someone who terrorises the other children.

You believe CNN should have used this hugely sloppy and inaccurate term to describe the Dubrovka hostage-takers. I support the vocabularly CNN used, because it was factual and accurate. It did not diminish the level of the atrocity they threatened at all.

As soon as we use terminology which is emotionally-charged but factually vague, any attempt to report the truth goes out the window. It's the difference between good reporting and sensationalist journalism.

Jet
21-08-2003, 19:34
True, for some people these might be freedom fighters, but I believe we should always seek the common denominator, otherwise we will be calling essentially the same acts of violence in Baghdad and Mozdok by different names, hense essentially destracting the public opinion from the core issue - terrorism is terrorism, nothing too emotional about that.

Broadmoor Bob
21-08-2003, 19:50
Neil has it right, but it will take a sea change in the English language to get things back to normal. Terrorist, like Nazi, has become cheapened, and has lost its heinous connotation. At this point, a longer phrase like armed hostage-takers or suicide bombers is the only way to get the message across. The use of the word terrorist to describe the Falun Gong reminds me of the old charge of "malicious hooliganism" (now, what the heck is a malicious hooligan?) that was leveled against human rights demonstrators and protestors by the Soviet regime during the days of the USSR. Sadly, the word terrorist can have as little meaning as the phrase "malicious hooligan(ism)."

Jet
21-08-2003, 23:25
I think we shouldn't make it too complicated. The discussion was: CNN has called chechens at Dubrovka armed decedents, while they were real terrorists, and now internationally recognized as terrorists. So, let's concentrate on the hard cases of international terrorism: 9/11, Dubrovka, Baghdad bombing that will help us to reach consensus at least on these events. These are the things we are faced right now, and you guys even in your daily lifes on Moscow streets. The international community and public opinion should have absolutely no doubt that the above tragedies were caused by the acts of international terrorism. Whether it is an unfortunate term or not, it is what what we have in regular news/political recourse, we should work with it.

Ned Kelly
22-08-2003, 10:48
I think CNN should start using corrupt idiots as an overarching term for those who profit from and allow terrorism to flourish. That would group the MVD and State Department together.

Anton S.
22-08-2003, 11:31
Why watch CNN when there is the alternative of BBC? It seems a bit more impartial and of somewhat higher quality.

Anouk
22-08-2003, 11:59
The BBC isn't really impartial anymore. During the Iraq war for instance when tanks could be seen by TV crews near the centre of Bagdhad, the information minister said in a press conference that all US tanks had been destroyed. Given this man's way with the truth the BBC put this statement up as a ticker across the screen as fact, not attributing the statement to him, so quickly they couldn't have time to check the facts, i.e look out the window.

Also I read somewhere that the Israeli government are not talking to BBC journalists because of they way they treat Isreal in their broadcasts.

I don't want Fox News style patrotism, just the facts so I can make up my own mind.

I good newsline is www.rferl.com for news about Russia, the Caucasus, Central Asia etc.

Jet
22-08-2003, 12:07
BBC has indeed become less impartial, but more in the general view way. It is still better then the CNN, simply b/s the quality of their people on the ground. BBC people are trying to get closer to the point zero, while Germans, French crews are usually at point zero. Good example was the first Chechen campaign.

Ned Kelly
22-08-2003, 12:49
I like the BBC because it plays to my own prejudices - but when news breaks CNN are all over it while the beeb is still showing some Michael Pallin doco.

Jet
22-08-2003, 12:55
Euronews is almost as fast as CNN. However, if you think about it, I would rather have info a couple of minutes later on the BBC World, and a couple of hours later on other European networks but with much better research. My understanding that CNN has not a single journalist who speaks decent Russian, while, for example, Dutch, Belgian, German, French, Italian news bureaus chiefs are all Russian-speaking. That should tell you smth.

Ned Kelly
22-08-2003, 13:03
Well, I think your prejudices are getting the better of you a little. I'm not sure if she's still there but Jill Dougherty certainly spoke Russian when she was bureau chief. I'm not sure you and I see the same Euronews! Yours sounds good.

Jet
22-08-2003, 14:31
Jill Dougherty spoke such a bad russian that once during the live interview Professor Velihov asked for translation of what she said in what she thought was Russian. Euronews has a much bigger russian staff btw -- journalists, editors, commentators.

Ned Kelly
22-08-2003, 14:36
I stand corrected, I only read a profile on her... I don't resile from euronews though, it's nonsense.

Jet
22-08-2003, 14:48
Well, to be honest I don't watch the news all the time, but Euronews on Russia is still much better the CNN.

boscoe
22-08-2003, 17:38
Originally posted by Anouk

Also I read somewhere that the Israeli government are not talking to BBC journalists because of they way they treat Isreal in their broadcasts.


You mean they show it as a two sided conflict?

Jet
22-08-2003, 21:09
That was a good one

Anouk
22-08-2003, 23:37
"You mean they show it as a two-sided conflict"

Please do not start on the whole Israel/Palestine thing if you are not going to elaborate.

I cannot think of an example off the top of my head, but I think the BBC has been biased about this conflict in the past. However the coverage of the last suicide bombing was more balanced - talking to people from both Israel and Palestine.

"That was a good one"

Another worthy contribution to the debate.

boscoe
23-08-2003, 00:00
Ok as you asked….

The Jewish lobby is one of the most powerful in the US and many of the leading media companies in the US are Jewish owned.

The US give Israel $Billions in military aid each year.

Israel is in contravention of 68 (count them) 68 UN resolutions over a number of years… Sadam was in contravention of only 12 but the US led a war against him!

Aid organisations complain about ‘daily infringements of basic human rights’

Many Israeli soldiers would rather go to jail than participate in what they see as ‘inhumane treatment’ of normal Palestinians (and I’m not talking your run of the mill conscientious objectors but career soldiers – officers who would rather ruin their career and forfeit their pensions than participate)

What…. you didn’t know about any of this?


Point made?

Anouk
23-08-2003, 00:14
Yes I know all that.

The last figure I read was $3 billion dollars a year in aid to Israel.

My point was not taking the conflict as a whole, but reporting on individual events. For example suicide bombs vs. IDF actions against the Palestinians, sometimes the sympathy was more with the Palestinians than with the ORDINARY Israelis that were killed on a bus. When there are killings on both sides both should be covered in the same way. The media should present the deaths on BOTH sides as tragic.

Please don't start with the Jewish lobby thing - just because you are jewish you can't have a balanced view? Because you are jewish you are automatically a zionist?

neilmcg
23-08-2003, 00:54
>> Another worthy contribution to the debate. <<

More worthy than:

>> I cannot think of an example off the top of my head <<

N.

Jet
23-08-2003, 01:35
Anouk,

you started off a bit too agressive, and got an adequate reaction.

I didn't find any specific sympathy towards Palestinians in the European news coverage that would exceed the sympathy towards the ordinary Israelis, especially the vistims of the terrorists attacks. It is probably your own sentiment that sees enemies of Israel everywhere. Me, personally, I admire israelian anti-terroist expertise, just like many russians do. At the same time, it is a common knowledge that jews internationally are people of the most significant financial means. It is only logical that they use these means to promote their interests, like any other group of people with great capital power would do.

cyclby
23-08-2003, 11:01
Jet,
As the resident American albeit Canadian these days (I am always sure to make this distinction as it allows me to criticize both) I do not see the point of your point other than the usual generalizations which permeate this site which is a mirror on the rest of the world. “All Brits are great” “Americans are stupid and xenophobic” Xenophobic we are, “Russians are morons” Why are we living here then? “Canadians are boring” Americans are violent and Aggressive” yes we are! Ok, I digress.

You automatically assume that “all Americans suck up this pabulum on CNN as fact and that we all think like this? The reason that Fox and MSNBC arrived on the scene was the crap CNN reporting which rather than reporting the news made its own assumptions and reported them as fact. Which I guess is part of your point after all.

Look deeper, during his administration Bill Clinton completely polarized the US between left and right. CNN was referred to as the Clinton News Network at the time, hence FOX. Fox, owned by a Brit by the way, swung back the other direction and reported their version of the news which again interpreted the news and made assumptions but this time for the right leaning individuals. Used to be we had some middle ground out there but is has gone away. Bill O’Rielly, Fox star (No Spin Zone) whom I know personally has the most highly rated show on the channel and has the guts to call it “fair and balanced” gimme a break. You have to look at the root causes before you cast an “I cannot believe what they feed Americans” comment, we get what we ask for I guess.

They present news as entertainment these days. When I am in the States I get very frustrated at how insular we are, nothing happens outside of our borders? No one understands the Chechen conflict and in 1999 I was had to explain the Chechen conflict and it’s origins to friends they were completely unaware. No one heard anything about the bombings which occurred after the July 6th blast at the concert. Canada is a bit better but not much and the CBC completely slants the news, critical details left out like we cannot pick up everything (TV) south of the border anyway to fill in the blanks?

Americans do not pretend to be perfect and we revel in self deprecation. We know it is not perfect but we take what we need and throw the rest out with the garbage.


Jet, Good thread, provacative
We need some more like this

I made 100, last post:D :) ;)

Anouk
23-08-2003, 11:56
Neil I could not think of example "off the top of my head" as on Saturday evenings I do not have access to the BBC archives :). I could think of examples but I did not want to write them - I'd rather check my facts.

Jet Li. I am not paranoid - I do not "see enemies of Israel everywhere". It's the same paranoia when you talk about "jewish financial means" etc. As I said before just because you are jewish does not mean you are an extreme zionist or do not want a Palestinian state. In the beginning I was simply talking about BIAS IN REPORTING - I'm not getting drawn in to the whole jewish lobby thing.

Jet
23-08-2003, 12:18
2cyclby,

You definetly have a better insight into North American news coverage business then I do. However, I don't really see where we disagree, to be honest. I am very much with your "we get the news we ask for"!! However, my overall impression on FOX Iraq war broadcasting is "MY gosh!, and these people rule the world". But then again, if the benchmark for international TV broadcasting -- McNews aka CNN -- is an average North-American need for outside info, the world will be not a very interesting place.


2Anouk,

Again, you are just a bit over the top. If you don't want to be drawn into the "lobby discussion", why did you mention it at all in the last posting?? Or you want to turn a blind eye on that jews have a powerfull lobby? They do and I don't find anything disrespectfull in that. There is a golden rule of capitalizm: he who has the gold makes all the rules. For example, only overall sponsorship of the World Jewish Congress allowed for tracing of Nazi gold in Swiss, Italian and othe banks in favor of jewish WWII victims. I applaud this fact, but it is also the fact that no other groups of WWII victims, be it gypsies, russians, homosexuals, forced labor workers etc could afford such an asset forfeiture case, only jews.

boscoe
23-08-2003, 12:38
Originally posted by Anouk
Neil I could not think of example "off the top of my head" as on Saturday evenings I do not have access to the BBC archives :). I could think of examples but I did not want to write them - I'd rather check my facts.

Now you have had time – go on then!


Originally posted by Anouk
My point was not taking the conflict as a whole, but reporting on individual events. For example suicide bombs vs. IDF actions against the Palestinians, sometimes the sympathy was more with the Palestinians than with the ORDINARY Israelis that were killed on a bus. When there are killings on both sides both should be covered in the same way. The media should present the deaths on BOTH sides as tragic.?

The BBC often go out of their way to take the conflict as a whole and report both sides – That’s why the Israeli government don’t like them, – Is it not OK to report innocent deaths on the Palestinian side as well?? When an Apache gunship blows a car off the road innocents get hurt! They may take out their intended target but often a couple of kids walking along the road as well!

The BBC ALWAYS reports the number of casualties in a buss bomb and more than often reports how many children were included in the death toll, followed by a shot of a grieving mother lighting a candle at the scene!

So unless you can back up your allegation that the BBC is more sympathetic to the Palestinians I’d leave this one alone!


Originally posted by Anouk
As I said before just because you are jewish does not mean you are an extreme zionist or do not want a Palestinian state. In the beginning I was simply talking about BIAS IN REPORTING - I'm not getting drawn in to the whole jewish lobby thing.

but YOU started than line of debate by mentioning it and then asked me not to go further down that route without elaborating??

Now you don’t want to go down this line – why, it’s interesting stuff and shines a VERY STRONG LIGHT on what is happening in the ‘Israel/Palestine thing’ as you put it.

http://www.wrmea.com/us_aid_to_israel/index.htm



Originally posted by cyclby
Jet,
Americans do not pretend to be perfect

That’s just the problem they do :D

neilmcg
23-08-2003, 12:59
>> Fox, owned by a Brit by the way <<

I believe the ultimate owner is Mr Rupert Murdoch. Originally an Australian citizen, Mr Murdoch took American citizenship in the last few years (maybe 3-4 years ago?). Asked for his opinions on invading Iraq, Murdoch replied "it's essential - we need to get the price of gas down". Rupert Murdoch is a leading donor of funds to the Republican Party.

He may have committed many misdemeanours, but being a Brit hasn't been one of them :)

N.

Jet
23-08-2003, 13:09
I like both Brits and Americans, if they are not arrogant, but i have to admit Brits can be far more arrogant than americans, and I met a number of arrogant americans in DC. I was so happy that they live on the other side of the ocean. Brits have a superior sense of humor though, superseeded only by Irish humor.

Anouk
24-08-2003, 00:49
Originally I only posted about Israel as an example, along with the Iraq anecdote, of bias.

I realise whatever I about Israel will be wrong according to some people replying to this thread. Don't get me wrong I'm not some kind of neocon.

One reason for the suggestion of bias against Israel, has been the speed at which both sides put their views across. For example, at Jenin, news crews had no access to the town, the only IMMEDIATE way of getting news was to speak to eyewitnesses nearby the scene who were Palestinians. The Israeli government has been criticised by its own members for not having a fast medis office to put Israel's views across. So at Jenin the media ran with what they had heard from Palestinians, they must have tried to check their facts with the Israeli's - but the IDF is not exactly communicative to journalists. By the time Israel put forward their own view the news cycle had moved on to something else, their view was not reported, and so viewers only remember what the Palestinians said - they did not have two versions to compare.

That is one possible reason for bias - I did not say anything about deliberate anti-Israel policies. My Iraq example is another case of this - journalists not necessarily checking their facts, and by doing so creating bias.

Ned Kelly
24-08-2003, 14:08
Murdoch became a U.S. citizen 15 or so years ago. He's unbelievably intelligent but unfortunately uses his gifts in the most venal way possible.

Jet
24-08-2003, 18:55
Reporting on the Baghdad UN bombing one CNN reporter said that witnesses saw a man in a white shirt who was driving a truck loaded with explosives into the UN building, a man was clearly agitated (how would one look before blowing himself up?!)

Another report of CNN from Chechnya: a journalist pointed at the stray of bullet holes on the side of the house and said that those were clearly showing that a defenceless unarmed civilian was shoot at close range by Russian soldiers (hearsay at best). No witness testimonies were shown. A couple of days later, I saw a reporting by the German TV crew. They simply followed bothe the Chechen fighter on the battle field, and they did an excellent research. Have talked to a family of a killed Russian officer, and thrue their connections in Chechnya have found his documents in Grozny. That was an excellent piece of war journalism.

But what clearly violated ethics was obviously untrue poll during 1996 Russia election: CNN has shown a lead of Zyuganov over Yeltsin, in order to make the news on Russia election more exciting for the viewers. In actuality, at no time was Zyganov leading during the election.

geneven
24-08-2003, 19:33
So, everyone in this thread knows what an "armed decedent" is, right? A corpse with a gun!

CNN officially said that the theatre hostage-takers were corpses with guns?

I'd have to see proof.

Texas
25-08-2003, 10:42
Originally posted by Jet Li
How do they manage to maintain such a low standard of journalism for such long period of time? Their research is usually very thin, while their audience reach abroad is wide. The image of Russia that they have consistently created abroad leaves a lot to be desired.
Low standart of journalism??? If you think you could do better than CNN, you're free to give a try! I'm kind of a journalist too(a freelance writer), and I guess I'm free to have my own opinion and I'm also free to express it. If you disagree with me, it's your problem, not mine.

Jet
25-08-2003, 11:12
It is a largly free CNN-covered world, so we can agree to disagree or disagree to agree all we want! But if you have lived in Russia, you should be able to compare the reality with the CNN version.

Ned Kelly
25-08-2003, 11:15
Man, CNN is not a Russian company - so compare reality with Russian news if you like, probably even scarier - and its job is not to cover every detail of Russia. Why do you keep harping on about it?

neilmcg
25-08-2003, 12:22
I'm going to agree with Ned here (which may be a first :) ) - compared to the standard of objectivity on Russian news reporting, CNN is a paradise.

I would agree with you that the level of detail is often woefully lacking on CNN - leaving it open to the charge of being open to misinterpretation.

CNN fulfils its mission wholly - to give a broad overview of world news. Anyone who wants the detail can go to a more appropriate source for it? :)

N.

Jet
25-08-2003, 12:37
Did I say compare to the Russian news coverage??? Besides, if you don't want to continue this discussion, there are plenty of other threads :D

Ned Kelly
25-08-2003, 12:51
Neil, just climbing back on my chair after reading that...
Anyway, last point, if I wanted to I could find fault with almost every foreign report on Australia - and Australia's a pretty simple place to understand (compared to Russia especially). I just don't expect one or two people covering a country to have the resources or background to do it perfectly.

Jet
25-08-2003, 12:57
Then we can all agree that CNN is not perfect, I settle for that.

Ned Kelly
25-08-2003, 13:01
But I suggest that if you have deep (genuine?) concern about reporting standards and bias you start writing to Russian newspapers and TV stations before worrying about CNN.

Jet
25-08-2003, 13:10
Actually, I made a point in this discussion of comparing CNN to the German, French, Dutch, Italian standards of reporting on Russia, and they are heads and shoulders above the CN of N, trust me

Ned Kelly
25-08-2003, 13:26
Going by your other posts I could probably drop-kick you further (oops, take that back, can't do that in cafe).

cyclby
25-08-2003, 14:16
Originally posted by Jet Li
Did I say compare to the Russian news coverage???

Also from Jet

But if you have lived in Russia, you should be able to compare the reality with the CNN version.


Ned, I did it for you, reminds me of a song

"Drop kick me Jesus through the goal post's of life
end over end neither left nor the right"

:p :p :p

Ned Kelly
25-08-2003, 14:22
Same tune it seems as "I cracked 100 in the back yard at mum's".

Jet
25-08-2003, 19:10
2cyclby

R U talking about yourself??!! The reality is what you see yourself, not on TV, muchless CNN TV. But, guys, if we R talking about TV news: just last night there was a CNN report on MAKS 2003, all over again comments about Cold War blablabla: short and pointless. Contrary to that BBC World report on the airshow was much more informative than that of CN of N, so was the Euronews report. Italians had a great film footage to show about MAKS. CNN is too superficial for me, they are too lazy to go into the story, do in-depth research like european journalists do. But if other people love CNN, God bless. It is better than no news at all.

Jet
25-08-2003, 19:14
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
Going by your other posts I could probably drop-kick you further (oops, take that back, can't do that in cafe).

Are U serious?? You can try that, what holds you back? Superior IQ from down under??

Jet
25-08-2003, 21:19
4 cyclby (just trying to make this discussion more fun). Needless to say George W. Bush, MBA (Harvard), D.Phil (Bushism), Magna CNN

"We had a good Cabinet meeting, talked about a lot of issues. Secretary of State and Defense brought us up to date about our desires to spread freedom and peace around the world." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 1, 2003

"Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., July 25, 2003

"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are. We're very generous." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003

"It's very interesting when you think about it, the slaves who left here to go to America, because of their steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped change America." —George W. Bush, Dakar, Senegal, July 8, 2003

"My answer is bring them on."—On Iraqi militants attacking U.S. forces, George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003

"I urge the leaders in Europe and around the world to take swift, decisive action against terror groups such as Hamas, to cut off their funding, and to support — cut funding and support, as the United States has done." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 25, 2003

"Iran would be dangerous if they have a nuclear weapon." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 18, 2003

cyclby
05-09-2003, 14:15
Thanks for the info Jet, your hate knows no bounds. Here are a few for you. We can do this forever and ever but you are the one that demands such brevity?

It is fashionable for you to bash the U.S and for my countrymen to bow their head and say how sorry they are on behalf of my country. You get no such satisfaction from me. I feel damn lucky to have been born where I was. I do not apologize for Shit.

Do not be pissed at me because I spend a bit of time to defend my compatriots from your rampant generalizations. You, like the ones quoted below would love to see everyone knuckle under to your view of how we all should live.

At least you could find some quotes from Bush. I could not find a bloody thing from Mr. Putin

Have a nice day

:p

“A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”
Joseph Stalin

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”
Lenin

“While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.”
Lenin,

“Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.”
Josef Stalin

[After Communism succeeds] ...”then, there will come a peace across the earth”
Josef Stalin

“Death solves all problems - no man, no problem.”
Joseph Stalin

Jet
05-09-2003, 14:25
Bushisms are what we are faced right now, Lenin and Stalin are dead - wake up and smell what ever it is to smell there. what ever made you quote them? probably, you equalized their drive for world domination with that of Bush-junior :D :D got ya!

I don't hate americans, i like americans even if the watch too much of CNN, i just don't like arrogant americans

cyclby
05-09-2003, 17:24
Originally posted by Jet Li
I don't hate americans, i like americans even if the watch too much of CNN, i just don't like arrogant americans [/B]
Blah, Blah, Blah

Your youth is showing Jet. You engage in name calling and generalizations about a persons home, post some quotes that I guess are meant to disparage me and then you tell me do not hate americans :confused: Sorry, I should have used the word despise. This board and the Internet in general gives you the protection of anonimity that you can be a "horses ass" without having to face the person you are talking to, don't abuse it.
I am sorry that every culture / person / news outlet does not conform to your world view. How boring would that be.

I have admitted numerous times that we (americans) can be a bunch of arrogant fatheads so I guess this means you don't like us. Like we care :p

I hope this is not too long and pointless for you. Heaven forbid someone has an opposing view to your Xenophobia.
:confused:
Have a good one

Broadmoor Bob
05-09-2003, 17:53
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”
Lenin


For the record - wasn't that gem from Goebbels (sp)?

Anouk
05-09-2003, 18:01
I think it was Lenin who said that quote (I just used my vast mental capacity i.e did a google search). But I'm sure Goebbels must have used it at some point.

Broadmoor Bob
05-09-2003, 18:04
Yes, you are right. Here is the similar Goebbels quote:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

Jet
05-09-2003, 20:26
cyclby

listen, i am flying in tommorow and will be around 21:00 at 16 tons or where ever expat.ru is meeting. I don't want to make any trouble, but if you insist that i somehow afraid to meet you and explain my position, you are wrong.

I am just saying that CNN is not the best broadcasting organization in the world when it comes to reporting on Russia and I gave some examples. I am quick to say that i generally like americans, those who are not arrogant like Bob, for example. You make it too personal, so you are just being a red neck -- arrogant american. I can repeat that tommorow in your face, if you want. Having said that, I am not going to escalate (there will be no punches flying, unless you insist), I'll just repeat everything I said here.

So, see you tommorow

cyclby
05-09-2003, 22:54
Originally posted by Broadmoor Bob
For the record - wasn't that gem from Goebbels (sp)?

Bob, Anouk
The Lenin quote was attributed to him on 2 different sites, does not mean they were right but I pulled it off a google search myself.

neilmcg
05-09-2003, 23:03
But returning to the topic, which is CNN...

... I am freshly back from a trip out of Russia, during which CNN was the only English-language channel on my TV. I was appalled to hear the following the war on Iraq discussed as follows:

ANCHOR: "How will the White House deal with the growing anarchy in Iraq?"

WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: "We have to be ready to do everything to combat the enemy in the War on Terrorism".

ANCHOR: "Now over to our expert on Terrorism, what do you believe the outcome will be?"

TERRORISM "EXPERT": "If terrorists believe the USA is weakening, they will exploit that weakness, so Bush must continue the operations in Iraq without letting up".

No mention of the fact that not a SINGLE act of terrorism can be traced to Iraq, nor can any alliance between Iraq and a terrorist organisation be proven even hazily.

On this basis, I take back what I said earlier about CNN. It's American Imperialist shit.

N.

cyclby
05-09-2003, 23:13
Originally posted by Jet Li
cyclby

listen, i am flying in tommorow and will be around 21:00 at 16 tons or where ever expat.ru is meeting. I don't want to make any trouble, but if you insist that i somehow afraid to meet you and explain my position, you are wrong.


So, see you tommorow

Jet,
For Chrissakes, at what point did I pick a fight with you?? When did I say that you would be afraid to meet with me? Now you want me to show up somewhere so the "fists will fly".

I will gladly sit down and have drink with you anywhere, anytime and that is exactly my point. Do you really think that we would be this rude face to face? Well then we are both losers are we not? Besides, we have already met.

Redneck Ehhh?:D :D

cyclby
05-09-2003, 23:22
Jet,
Clean out your PM box please

Jet
05-09-2003, 23:34
I know, smth is wrong with my mail box, probably NSA :D joking. OK, cowboy, let's bare the hatches (i fogort how to spell it), agree to disagree and smoke a pipe of peace or whatever it is called. If I made it on time to wherever expat.ru is going tommorow I'll buy you vodka-tonic. If you are not there -- i will drink it to your health!

Anouk
05-09-2003, 23:36
cyclby:

I'm not going to start a "my google search was better than yours" argument, :) but I got several pages attributing that quote to Lenin. But Goebbels and Lenin were both well versed in lying.

Broadmoor Bob
05-09-2003, 23:40
The original quote posted was from Lenin. I confused it with a similar quote from Goebbels, which I later posted in order to show the difference.

cyclby
05-09-2003, 23:56
Jet,
Ok, Vodka all around

Guys,
I just found the Goebbels quote as well. The internet is a wonderful thing.

:D