Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

CNN Responds

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted March 27, 2006.


Your critique of CNN's war coverage indicates that you, reader, are on the 'fringe.'
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

"One man's fact is another man's opinion."

That in a nutshell is Jonathan Klein's answer to the many questions and criticisms posed in this space recently by me and you concerning CNN's coverage of the ongoing war in Iraq.

To the president of CNN/US, we're "naive, highly partisan extremists," a "definite minority out on the fringe" whose tone is strident but whose criticism is insubstantial, and clearly out of step with "the vast majority of Americans who simply do not feel" the way we do.

After a lengthy negotiation with CNN publicists (see sidebar) Klein and I finally spoke over the phone last week. While he declined to comment on CNN's coverage of the start of the war, "since I didn't start working at CNN until December 2004," he was more forthcoming about his positive view of CNN's current war coverage, as well as his dismissive take on anti-war critics of the mainstream media in general, and CNN in particular.

"We're being very aggressive in covering the war at the moment," Klein began. "We have lots of people with lots of expertise on the ground in Baghdad now. Generally, I think we're doing a good job of daily reporting, and we also have the capacity to do in-depth reporting and documentaries. In fact we've aired five or six docs and specials already, including an hourlong look at WMD, two hours on how war is going, and so forth."

While praising his own, Klein was critical of his critics, saying, "It's naive for otherwise intelligent people to assume CNN has any role other than reporting the facts. They may oppose the war, but the conduct of the war is simply not up to CNN.

"Who is the 'anti-war crowd?'" Klein asked rhetorically. "Many people now oppose the war, but how many take such an extreme position vis-a-vis the mainstream media and complain about the war coverage? It's one thing to be opposed to the war, it's another to affix blame to the media. In any event, whether that is a valid point of view or not, it's certainly not shared by the majority of Americans."

As a case in point, Klein referred to questions raised about coverage of the so-called "Downing Street memo," which famously revealed the details of a meeting between President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair that concerned Bush's intent to "fix" intelligence and facts in order to justify an eventual attack on Iraq. As I had noted in a question to Klein (question 10), the bombshell memo was "ignored by mainstream media until it became too embarrassing to suppress."

To Klein, however, the coverage of the memo is a "good example" of what CNN is doing right. "The Downing Street memo was reported on CNN," he said. "Perhaps not as often as certain partisan extremists would have liked it to be but it certainly was not ignored by us or by the mainstream media in general. "It's true the memo was also widely covered by alternative media," he added. "So does it matter if it was or was not covered enough by the mainstream to satisfy a highly partisan crowd? The great thing about the new media landscape is that people can get information if they need it. Thank God there is lots of opportunity now to get more information from sources other than the mainstream."

Can CNN do a better job of reporting on the war? "Of course we could do all sorts of things better," he said. "We want to add more depth and more analysis, for example -- NPR is great at that -- and we also want more diversity, because that makes us more interesting to watch."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

This and other articles by Rory O'Connor are available on his blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Regurgitating balanced lies
Posted by: IanA on Mar 27, 2006 2:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sometimes though I get really tired of the way the mainstream media pretends to be balanced when presenting something. It would be so nice just to hear or read for example: "In his press conference on Thursday President Bush defended his reasons for war in Iraq, including stating that “Saddam Hussein prevented inspections” and rejected UN weapons inspectors in 2003, stating that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 was in unanimous agreement by the members... and authorized action. These statements were lies." The media questions nothing, kill truth, and seem happy to report lies without qualification while patting themselves on the back for a great job well done. I may not be the majority but I have enough sense to reach for the off switch. Support INN and get the news CNN will not show you:

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's Time for a REVOLUTION
Posted by: thinkverybig on Mar 27, 2006 2:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The immigrant uprising, fair and decent wages to live, corporate abuse of illegal immigrants, failures by the United States government to enforce laws sooner resulting in the present chaos, corporations paying CEO's 2500 times more than the average worker, the government allowing monopolies therefore creating systems where the few control more and so on, unfairness in our justice system where the majority is of one race or those who are poor, unfair trade practices or no trade at all with nations of color, ignoring poverty in the U.S and worldwide, neglect of our own poor and middle class for the benefit of big business, politicians being bought out by lobbyists and corporations, politicians giving themselves pay raises while millions are without jobs and 45 million plus are without healthcare, lack of compassion and help for poor nations worldwide, failure to institute campaign finance reform, government corruption, outsourcing of american jobs and more are reasons America is in need of a revolution. It's time for a change in our political, social, and judicial systems in this country.

With so many other important issues we could be addressing, we choose to invade two other countries, spend over 350 billion in tax payers money, and be responsible for over 2500 U.S. Soldiers lives not counting those who are injured emotionally and physically. And also the tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans we have killed and scarred for life. Where are our priorities or is it all about the money.... not the people. It's time for a CHANGE and the sooner the better folks... It's time for a REVOLUTION.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Stop cross-posting this sh*t Posted by: Allison
» RE: It's Time for a REVOLUTION Posted by: ihatebush
CNN Lies
Posted by: paul_revere on Mar 27, 2006 3:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is interesting how CNN perpetuates the lies of the authorities by their reluctance to report the truth.

In a report by CNN this past weekend, they told the viewing audience "The Los Angeles Police Department reports that 25,000 people attended the march in Los Angeles." WHAT????

I couldn't believe my ears! All you have to do is look at the pictures of the march and you can tell that there was at least a half million people in the streets!

I have been to a protest in Los Angeles when Bush was attending a fund-raiser and we had 10,000 strong there. The LAPD tried to tell the news media that there were about 2,000 protestors. Bullshit!

CNN should have verified this statement by the LAPD before trying to play down the amount of people who protested in Los Angeles. Both the LAPD and CNN are LIARS!

CNN is the newest propaganda arm of the Bush Admin. They call the anti-war crowd "fringe." WHAT?? Gee, it was only a fact that 90% of the delegates on the floor of the Democratic Convention in 2004 were "anti-war" and guess who reported that? The MSM and CNN!

CNN is a disgrace to journalism and television news. They should rename the Situation Room to the Spin Room.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CNN Lies Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: CNN Lies Posted by: ccbite
No one will believe you
Posted by: sjp500 on Mar 27, 2006 4:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My favorite statement by Jonathan Klein?

"In any event, whether that is a valid point of view or not -- it's certainly not shared by the majority of Americans."

Who cares if you're right? No one will believe you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Proud to be a "Fringey"
Posted by: Nez46 on Mar 27, 2006 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While i find it amazing that Klein thinks that perhaps 70% of us constitute a "fringe", I'm not surprised that he needs to defend the hands that feed him.
Perhaps CNN ought to look in the mirror to discover the real members of the "fringe".....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Proud to be a "Fringey" Posted by: sjp500
» Come again? Posted by: ABetterFuture
media and the government
Posted by: thecynic on Mar 27, 2006 4:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not just the war coverage. When has anyone ever heard the mainstream media cover the administration in any other than a positive way. I guess you can't blame them. If they were to be critical of the andministration, they would get fined by the FCC not doubt.

And do the people care? Nope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

big biz
Posted by: rsaxto on Mar 27, 2006 5:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since CNN is big biz it is being managed by the same folks that brought us Cheney/Bush. So naturally they go along with no significant criticism of Bushie big biz policies and actions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CNN Neuz
Posted by: Crackbaby on Mar 27, 2006 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CNN Neuz is an insipid mix:

1) Anorexic newsmodels like Daryn Kagen reading the biased text and adding to the conservative echo-chamber with subtle, and not so subtle, body movements, tones, inflections and glib asides;

2) Puffed up "serious" neuz weasels from the ranks of the last-picked in highschool gym. Their pathologies stem from a variety of issues that can turn relatively good boys into freakish wannabees who still get pushed around by the big guys (in their minds, if not their bodies);

3) Intellectual balloons with faces touting the lastest unnecessary gadget or promoting another way to arrange meats and vegetables on the plate;

4) Commercials;

5) Ads;

6) Promotions;

7) Announcements......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ChickenNoodleNeuz Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: ChickenNoodleNeuz Posted by: Welfl
Who is partisan?
Posted by: antiapathy on Mar 27, 2006 6:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm as fed-up with Dems as I am Repugs. I think the mainstream majority is as well. The only difference is that alternet readers tend not to be as apathetic as the mainstream. And CNN's shoddy coverage is contributing to that mainstream apathy.

So if actually caring about the issues makes me an extremist, then hooray for me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who is partisan? Posted by: covalentbonded
» RE: Who is partisan? Posted by: rockpicker
» RE: Who is partisan? Posted by: AlienSlave
So when do we get an...
Posted by: flake on Mar 27, 2006 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...ANN (AlterNet News Network) source so I don't have to watch CNN (which, although substandard reality-based news, is still much better than watching Bill & Sean spew garbage out of the Fox channel)?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So when do we get an... Posted by: AlienSlave
CANCEL and BOYCOTT the Cable TV bill -- bye bye CNN
Posted by: Meremark on Mar 27, 2006 7:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
-

Call the Cable TV company today, CANCEL subscriptions -- $$ave Big Buck$ for yourSELF.

Oh, CableTV included in the rent? -- Sue the housing authority.

Cancel and BOYCOTT - - BOYCOTT - - BOYCOTT Cable TV.

Your money goes to ALL the channels, CNN, FUX O'Reilly, Pat Robertson Religion -- whether you WATCH or NOT !!

CANCELLATION bankrupts ALL the channels.

Visit TV Turn-OFF Week (dot) org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Journalistic Relativism
Posted by: sjp500 on Mar 27, 2006 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most people once thought the earth was flat. CNN might call these people "fringe" thinkers or geographical extermists. Yet, the sphere crowd were were right about their facts, and what was True remained so irrespective of popular opinion.

A viewsman believes, but a newsman seeks what is True.

Good luck to you CNN if you are looking for what is True in Washington.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow.
Posted by: bettsoff on Mar 27, 2006 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pretty slimy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It It Weren't For A Few Bad Apples...
Posted by: pelle_in_goal on Mar 27, 2006 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Klein's reply in defence of CNN's coverage war coverage doesn't even pass this acid test:

Note: Charles Lewis is chief editor of The Center For Public Integrity. [http://www.publicintegrity.org]. I like his approach to investigate what's supposed to be passing as news coverage in America. I wish we had more people like him "ombudsmanning" the news, since there seems to be more people spinning it than ever before.

One quote of Lewis's will probably always stick in my mind:

"...call me 'crazy," but you 'do' the news. I've never heard of doing news stories just because they appeal to a particular demographic...[T]hat's just nonsense...."

Not only does CNN base its war coverage on addressing a "particular demographic" but its "demographic" is defined --by default -- as some "non-partisan yet politically savvy silent majority of Americans." I'm not sure many such people exist.

If they do, they must be living in catacombs under our largest cities since they're also at least 51% of the population. Of course, one could also live under a rock or with one's head buried in sand for the same effect. No matter-- the best thing about these folks is that they come up for air just when the stock ticker is starting to run at the bottom of CNN's screen.

Sadly, there may actually be may be a lot of truth to this skewered view of CNN. By the "majority" of Americans Klein might mean people who own the majority of wealth in this country. Alternatively, the "highly partisan extremists" Klein speaks of could mean the people who expound "class warfare" -- like it was some PsyOp to prey on the minds of compassionate, asset-holding Americans.

[By the way -- lest I forget -- I think Klein thinks dogsh*t of the American people. P.T. Barnum must be his favourite journalist.]

But let's give Klein his due. He claims that "the conduct of the war is not up to CNN." I guess he means putting more reporters on ground in Baghdad's Green Zone guarananties more factual and unbiased news coverage of the war than ever before. No wonder the White House is more than willing to help CNN out -- now that CNN does more "in-depth" news and even "documentaries."

Still, why don't I feel convinced that I've been wrong about CNN? Is it that al-Jazeera not only does a much better job of basic war coverage but gets out "in country" much more often than CNN. Al-jazeera finds ways to assess -- in spite of the constant dangers of being outside the Green Zone -- what Iraqis really feel and how they've held up while their country is being ravaged by a war that seems to have no end in sight.

What kind of extremist have I become? This: I've been seeing things from the Iraqi point of view -- no more or no less. Klein -- to his "credit" -- makes that view sound like if it ain't already a crime to think like that, it ought to be.

And I'm sure Klein's not alone. Hope this view doesn't in any way affect the "scientific" polling CNN does. Surely none of us have anything to lose by talking to that bunch. [Yeah...right!] Oddly, we can actually thank Klein for replying to Rob Kall's queries -- he's let one more cat out of the bag

pig

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

America is on the fringe.
Posted by: Ghoulman on Mar 27, 2006 8:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The American Empire is in sharp decline, and it's faster than expected.

I'm not on the fringe... the USA is and will continue to be even when Americans, say about 20 years from now, start to get it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let them hear us
Posted by: ScottP on Mar 27, 2006 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like they can't hear us, so let's make some noise:
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.html?35

Perhaps while he's claiming the coverage is fair, he'd like to comment on the balance between his correspondents who are embedded with US forces versus the number embedded with Iraqi resistance fighters. I'm sure they're about equal since he claims it's fair coverage!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

balance
Posted by: D_Phlat on Mar 27, 2006 8:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At two points in Rory O'Connor's article he quotes Jonathan Klein saying that he receives criticisms from both sides- even "extremists" on both sides. It seems to me that it is not Mr. Klein's job to simply ignore both, but rather to weigh the accuracy of such claims. An honest committment to improving coverage requires such, however Mr. Klein seems to dismiss both.

After comparing the usual extremist right criticisms stating that the news is too negative/ left-leaning and liberals love terrorists with our criticism that reports are too kind to a murderous lawless administration, Mr. Klein should be able to see that the former critique is vapid and unsupported while the latter is rife with examples and would be duly noted and incorporated into in a plan to improve coverage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ugh... same delusional thinking by corporatists
Posted by: SufiLizard on Mar 27, 2006 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a couple of major problems with this whole thing.

Of course my first criticism of modern journalism (especially on television) is the delusion that providing balance somehow is the same or better than reporting truth.

Just because you have one guy on who says the sky is blue, you don't have to provide equal time to a nutjob who claims it's plaid. If you have to report on the nutjob, at least comment that you are looking at the sky right now and it is, indeed, blue. That's not a bias, or if it is, it is a bias toward facts.

But what really burned me up about these comments from the suit at CNN was how he kept referring to us as "fringe."

a) If the TRUTH is only recognized by a small "fringe" then that in itself is an indictment of the job they are doing as a news media.

b) Why is it that the media regularly features the lunatic fringe of the far right and tend to "balance" that with only the most conservative, moderate Democrats they can find? Bill O'Reilly has his own freakin' show, but when was the last time you saw Noam Chomsky as even a guest on a so-called debate show?

If you insist on adhering to the irrational cult-like devotion to "balance" at least make it actually balance. When you parade out the right-wing extremists at least counter them with people from the left who are equally extreme.

On television they barely disguise the fact they'll resort to anything for ratings anyway. They might as well just embrace the fact that they're appealing to the same impulses that made the circus side show so profitable in a different era.

If you're going to have Tucker Carlson and his ridiculous bow tie, why not "balance" the broadcast with a well-spoken anarchist in a mask and his black spot sneakers? Instead we get folks like Lieberman...

You don't have to be a physicist to understand that if you have one guy at the farthest end of the teeter-totter, you're not going to balance the thing by piling up people in the middle -- no matter how heavy or how many.

So even by their own flawed ideology of "balance," they're doing a horrible job.

Of course I've discovered I have more success employing logic and reason in an argument with my four-year-old than I do trying it with a Republican.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who is fringe?
Posted by: brad on Mar 27, 2006 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact of the matter is that the views of most here, and most on the so called left are actually the middle mainstream views of the people. The corpacracy that is in charge of the media and the political system may catagorize these mainstream views as fringe in order to disempower and enervate the political power of the majority, but this will only worsen the cleavage between their policy and goals of the people.

Even highly skeptical public oppinon polls show overwhelming support for so called "fringe" beliefs such as; ending the occupation of Iraq, moving to reduce global warming and creating a more just, equitable economy etc.. Yet the democracy deficiet of the country grows ever larger (the space between policy and public oppinion). But again this will only lead to further deligitimization of the system of corporate rule imposed and usser in a new era of popular sovereign democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gramps
Posted by: gramps on Mar 27, 2006 9:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coverate of what war? There is no war in Iraq. What we have here is an illegal occupation. There are no insurgents, there are patriots. If the Arabs were over here with a military force wouldn't you be taking your deer rifle out of its case? Were our forefathers insurgents when they fought the British occupation? And the Free French of The Interior who killed Nazis and their Vichy collaborators - were they terrorists?

The corporations with their commercials are experts in the art of brainwashing. Can you expect Cox to give up the $132 a month they charge me for allowing me to use their "pipe", (government subsidized cable) for three television sets and a computer? Not only have the corporations taken over our government, but they have taken over our language, and our culture. My twelve year old grandson uses my computer and I just read a document that he wrote on the word processor.

St. John, Alex
Spelta Period 1
3/18/06 History
China Paper

If I Were Emperor
The aftermath of the Qin Empire was great, but before Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi life in China was the exact opposite. Before Qin every city was at war for China. The things the Chinese used wasn’t standardized, like the money and measurement. They were uneven so trade was hard.
Emperor Qin united China into one country. While everyone was fighting for China, Qin bribed some people into helping him takeover. With his double headed knife axe, he declared that he was the new emperor of China and that was it. He had his soldiers slaughter everyone who didn’t obey him.
Emperor Qin had ended feudalism. He had his soldiers slaughter people who wanted to assassinate him. There are things I would do different than Qin. Also there are things I would do the same. I would do that whole slaughter people that tried to assassinate me thing.
The things I would not do like him is be crazy and have my soldiers burn someone hand-made book they have been making for years. I wouldn’t really like to kill as much as him. That is really mean to just burn a big book that took a while to make. I wouldn’t kill any of my family members because they are important to me and I would get real lonely
The ideas I mentioned before might make me a more (a lot more) beloved emperor than Qin. That is what I believe. I think those ideas are really great and that is what every emperor should act and be like. I hope this paper has told you about me as emperor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Patriots? Posted by: blueneck
Once again, folks...
Posted by: chasaturn on Mar 27, 2006 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE MEDIA IS A VIABLE TARGET Whenever you see one of those rolling newsrooms (vans), surround it and the people within and let them know you don't appreciate their lies, deception, and blatant propaganda. Keep them from being able to get out with their cameras and lights and do a live report on ANYTHING - even if it's something you'd want folks to know about - because, when they're done with it, the truth will be twisted and what is broadcast will be more corporate lies. Make their lies cost them LOTS of money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

C.N.N.
Posted by: pacto on Mar 27, 2006 10:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CERTAINLY NOT NEUTRAL THIS should be the catchphrase for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why don't you guys get it?
Posted by: peritonlogon on Mar 27, 2006 11:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CNN, is not biassed, they are neutral, its the facts that are biassed. You all should realize what ought to be criticized, the facts, not the people or organizations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too good for a Re
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 27, 2006 11:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Scene 1
Wolf Blitzer-
Welcome to The Situation Room. Today we are going to generate more heat than light, allow paid pundits from bought-and-paid-for Beltway Think Tanks to shout their daily talking points, give one legitimate expert 15 seconds to try to interject a relevant point in the melee, run commercials for 1/3rd of our program time, consume another 1/5th of our time with bumps, teases and tags and I will personally utter the phrase "You are in the situation room" at least 20 times.

When we return I will still be on this gaudy set in front of a huge plasma screen asking the presidents of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox if they think the FCC is really necessary. Of course, if the Sheriff of Mayberry has a car chase, we will suspend all coverage until that is over as it is Breaking News. You are in the situation room.

I think that just about sums it up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sounds like another "Heckuva Job...."
Posted by: chaoslegs on Mar 27, 2006 1:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
endorsement of his station. 66 million people sounds like a lot. I don't know how they gather the ratings data but I would guess that the claim might be off.

If a 7 PM M-F program gets 1.5 million people, what do you want to be that around 1 million of them are the same people every night. At that point are you counting 7.5 million for the week, or 1 million every night plus .5 million different every night for a total 3.5 million. Just thinking about how they get their numbers and if they may be misleading.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CNN - CAN'T COVER NEWS
Posted by: chanceny on Mar 27, 2006 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Klein is a condescending schmuck. He uses the word 'fringes' and we all know who he's referring to and why. CNN and most all other 'news' outlets are bottom-line feeders. The fear shown when star reporter Christine Armapour had the temerity to tell the truth was evident. Eventually the stale over-repeated bushite talking points, the vain search for the good news in Iraq our divider-in-chief demands, and the sheer hypocrisy of the relogious zealots all too willing to send more American kids into their killing fields while they pledge their fidelity to a moron, will be uncovered. The ratings he's so proud of are highest when some blonde is kidnapped or a car chase is breaking news. How much pride he must feel!! And what of poor Ted Turner? This is not what he had intended when he boldly launched CNN.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CNN sucks more than Fox...
Posted by: kooz on Mar 27, 2006 2:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least with Fox you know it's extreme right-wing and biased as such. CNN tries to hide it's baloney in the Situation Room, oooh! Wolf Blitzer shouting for WARRR. CNN is so full of shit, Paula ZIPPER Zahn, Anderson butt-boy Cooper. And never mind Soledad and Miles, GOD almighty, whatever journalism there was at one time behind the doors of CNN have long ago evaporated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cnn
Posted by: 1-4peaceinPgh on Mar 27, 2006 3:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CNN...Corporate News for Nitwits...reports feel good news because they believe people will be more willing to watch "good" news over true (bad?) news. "Let's keep the ratings up while Rome burns beneath our feet." And as for fringe, 90% of the people I talk to are disgusted with msm and these are not just my acquaintances, I talk to everyone... in the grocery store, on the street, at the carwash, work, parties, walking my dog in the park, at teh symphony, etc. I feel it is my personal mission to inform all I come in contact with about the lies and deceit of the msm. Besides have you ever seen the fringe on the hem of a favorite pair of jeans? It just keeps growing and growing and adding to comfort and appeal. Fringe surrounds the whole, it always goes from the outside in not the inside out!! We sure have alot of fringe these days.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Weasel goes big time (and fizzles).
Posted by: badclams on Mar 27, 2006 4:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just finished reading Klein’s remarks. One word comes to mind. Weasel. From here on I will call him Jonathan Weasel. Sounds like the new handle may fit well. How Mr. Weasel did you determine who represents the “mainstream” and who represents the “fringe”? The answer is—you didn’t—because you can’t. The terms are meaningless. “The vast majority Americans do not feel the way your readers do, and do not express those feelings to us", you are anxious to tell us. So where are they getting the information that helps them decide what they should think or how they should feel? Fox News? CBS? NBC? The New York Times? The Washington Times? Sean Hannity? Ann Coulter? Rush Limbaugh? Bill O’Reilly? Michael Savage? Ahh...more and more it's CNN you are proud to tell us. Now according to you “every week sixty-six million American get their news from watching CNN -- more than any other news network -- so we must be satisfying their needs for information”. Isn’t this a circular argument? Most everyone is “having his or her information needs met” by the corporate media. Is it any surprise then that a Harris Poll conducted December 29th 2005 found that:

• Forty-one percent (41%) of U.S. adults believe that Saddam Hussein had "strong links to Al Qaeda."
• Twenty-two percent (22%) of adults believe that Saddam Hussein "helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11."
• Twenty-six percent (26%) of adults believe that Iraq "had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded."
• Twenty-four percent (24%) of all adults believe that "several of the hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11 were Iraqis."

Although these numbers were down from a year earlier they are still thoroughly depressing. Doesn’t this at least raise a few questions in your mind Mr. Weasel. You know... questions about whose information needs are being met. I am not going to get into the fruitless facts/opinion discussion with the likes of you. You couldn't care less about the difference. The question is what evidence do you have that Mr. O’Conner’s views are those of a fringe minority? I don’t think you have any. If you do please produce it. Would you call the view that Saddam had strong links to Al Quaeda a “mainstream” view in light of the number of Americans that hold it? And what does this say about how well “the information needs” of the American people are being met by the “mainstream” media? This is the best response you and your staff could come up with to the questions posed by a single blogger given that this was not a spontaneous interview. Fringe indeed! If I owned CNN, which I don’t because I can't even afford cable, you would be looking for work elsewhere tomorrow. A very poor performance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

george
Posted by: arthur on Mar 27, 2006 6:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CNN is not the minstream media any more than Fox or MSNBC. They are corporate owned right wing establishment media. My advice: if you're young enough, move to New Zealand. America has no future and a dangerous present which threatens the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When you hold their feet to the fire, don't expect them to smile.
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 27, 2006 7:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great piece. It's what journalism is supposed to be all about.

I don't watch tv nor do I read CNN online any longer. I'm tired of the endless half-truths interrupted only by lies.

Even when you catch someone with their hand in the cookie jar, you can expect, "Not my hand. Bad hand. I'd never do that. Must be someone from the fringe."

Grin and bear it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

anti war is perjorative, CNN bias
Posted by: bigdavefromqueens on Mar 27, 2006 8:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The term "anti war" means that you oppose war at all times no matter what. While indeed a few people properly fit this description, most people opposed to the Iraq War do not.

I support war when necessary. I support war to go capture and kill Osama Bin Laden.

I do not support war to go after a person who was Osama Bin Laden's biggest enemy in the middle east so that Bush can ignore Bin Laden, enrich the oil/military/industrial complex, and use our troops as fodder because W has unresolved psychological issues with his father.

It is very important that when CNN or another media outlet label you as "anti war," that you attack them as biased on the spot and get the facts out above. Then you can throw in a few lines about how Bush, whether intentionally or not, has fulfilled almost all of Bin Laden's wish list for the Middle East. But before you hit them with the facts, you have to destroy the frame. NEVER allow yourself to be called "anti war." But feel free to fight back and call Bush and Republicans "enablers of Bin Laden" and the like.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HAS ANYONE NOTICED HOW OFTEN WOLF BLITZER
Posted by: krose on Mar 27, 2006 9:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HAS TRIED TO CHANGE OUR MINDS ON THE DUBAI PORT DEAL?
He continues to do it, only more subtly now! Even this Sunday he was harping on it! I have written to CNN, more than once, and told them that it is well known that Times-Warner has interests in Dubai, and that they are not fooling anyone by this ploy, but Wolf continues to try to tell us that we have made a mistake, and Dubai may not purchase goods from us anymore, because we cancelled their deal! It is really comical, at this point!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A New Beginning?
Posted by: aussidawg on Mar 29, 2006 4:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to admit, in the past, CNN has been weak kneed as have most, actually all of the mainstream media outlets in covering what our beloved Bush administration is doing. However, to their credit, CNN's Showbiz has been the first "mainstream" media source to cover the 9/11 truth movement. Hey! It's a step in the right direction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thoughts on News
Posted by: Kate_24 on Mar 30, 2006 2:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is my first-time-ever comment here, and I'm not a native speaker.

That being said, I must also admit that I have wanted to become a journalist ever since I was about 14. That's the first time ever I set foot into a news room (although it was only a very small local newspaper), and I've been pursuing it ever since. Thus, I became a journalism student to learn as much about the craft as I could ... and was utterly disillusioned.

I am not a very competitve person, and I like to work independently. Both are things that do not pay well in journalism. If you're out too much on the edge, if you think what you write might actually change something, you've already lost.

Within the system of how journalism functions today - embedded (forgive me that word) in a social, cultural, organizational, and economic context - journalists are actually doing quite a good job. They report the _news_ - events, conflicts, sometimes even non-events, but in any case novel, spectacular, or outrageous. There was nothing wrong with that as long as 'serious' news media have taken a different path. That, however, doesn't sell as well. And in a capitalist world (and capitalism is no doubt the prevalent system in the U.S. and Western Europe today, albeit it has taken on different shapes in different countries) only what sells survives. It takes much more time, and thus money to write something profound than it takes to take a snap shot of some celebrity and write a three-liner. And most serious problems or conflicts are too complex and ugly to be put into nice pictures or into pictures at all.

And if blown-up non-events and hyped conflicts, if sex, celebrities, and staged events, if still and moving images are what the majority wants, what do you want to do about it? In a free country, you can hardly force them to listen to both sides of a discussion nor can you make them deal with the thourough, but often lengthy analysis of actually much more relevant events.

Thus, the problem of the media is not so much a problem of the media, but a problem of society(ies) at large. I assume the majority of people have hardly ever consumed news for the sake of getting relevant information, at least not on a daily basis. On the contrary, it was gossip and the prospect of having something to baa about that made people pay for a newspaper or later radio or television.

And that leads to my second point: The relevant mainstream has reached such a high living standard that the need not bother with social, economic, environmental, etc. problems. Thus, the media serve to their needs for entertainment. Of course, those who might have an interest in more serious issues are ignored and thereby lack the information that might cause them to stand up for their own rights.

Journalists then tend to think they're doing everything right because people are still reading/listening/watching. Yet, as the recipient where would you turn to if everywhere else you get the same nothing?

Another point is that new technologies, the Internet especially, have enabled many more people to express their opinions. If you want to be heard in this snarl of opinions, you need to express views that stand out. Hence, moderation is over the hill. Go for the extreme is the new motto.

It's a vicious circle because extremes provoke more extremes. Yet, neither side is right, but both distort the facts that might help us to put together a decent version of the actual truth.

I could go on with this argument because the issue is so infinitely more complex, but that again only illumates the problems we are facing today: We have access to more information, to more opinions than ever before but it really doesn't make anything any easier.

Eventually, I believe, we all get the news we want, and thereby the news we deserve.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thoughts on News Posted by: wli
pls, define FRINGE
Posted by: cold2touch on Mar 31, 2006 9:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Klein is an artful dodger and admirably skilled at slipping punches.
However, his frequent escape to "we are not here to please the fringes" begs the above question. First, CNN collaborates with the Downing Street Memo crowd, the likes of Cheney, Perle, Libby, Wolfowitz, Hadley, Rice, Miller and so on, to present the picture of Iraqi grown mushroom clouds covering American heartland, Saddam-Osama brotherhood, convinces the average trusting Joe that this is the real (not embedded) goods, then 3 years later, when the average (65% and growing) average Joe is no longer so trusting, he is all of a sudden fringe.
Jonathan Klein is fraud, albeit more skillful than crude WH and Congress liars and therefore more dangerous because he hides a nasty agenda behind mask of reasonableness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blackout- 9/11 outing on CNN Showbiz- Charlie Sheen - Sharon Stone
Posted by: henryberlin on Apr 1, 2006 1:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how come there is no word of respect for the courage of Charlie Sheen, Sharon Stone and Host A.J. Hammer to speak out on 9/11 live on CNN - who is pulling the strings to decide what makes the news on this site - history will judge you. bushtrash.com for videosdownloads of Sheen and Stone coming out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They Can't Stop The Tide
Posted by: Steven Wanzell on Apr 5, 2006 6:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, the game of branding dissenters as "fringe, extremists", etc. is such a tired old tactic, that it beckons only a chuckle today. (At least among those of us who actually read.)

By making our hopelessly corrupted system seem reasonable, the complicity of the mainstream press, in everything from the ongoing (bipartisan) bribery (aka "lobbying") of members of both Houses, by the (previously) unseen "powers that be" (big corporate interests), to helping Bush lie to us before the war, is equally old.

Listening to CNN's responses to criticizm of its coverage, one must wonder whether the network should just go ahead and move its headquarters into the Bush White House. It could save them lots of time and money, no?

Steven Wanzell, artist/activist, www.wanzellarts.com.ar (My site was down, but it's back now.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Roger
Posted by: rogeralexander on Apr 18, 2006 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CNN, by your standards i'm certainly on the fringe (in India). why you have to support Butcher Bush (vis a vis Iran) is beyond comprehension.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RogerEd
Posted by: rogeralexander on Apr 19, 2006 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If CNN was objective in its coverage, we would'nt need AlterNet. Corporate media has trivialised news to such an extent that even questioning their motives has become impossible. These guys just refuse to give straight answers. I'm happy that people like Hugo Chavez are actually putting their money where their moth is to give us the other side of the picture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]