High School Journalism from CNN -- Pathetic. CNN Sucks. Also, about race ...
Just finished reading "GOP soars in House, state races; Democrats cling to Senate majority" by "the CNN Wire Staff". I was pleased to see that the so-called "Democratic Party" is losing influence, but this pleasure was quickly subdued by the idiocy and bias of the article. It really could have been written by a high school student, yet I'm to believe it was written by thirteen adults? ("CNN's Tom Cohen, Michael Pearson, Dana Bash, Ed Henry, Ted Barrett, Deirdre Walsh, Paul Steinhauser, Rebecca Sinderbrand, Jessica Yellin, Alan Silverleib, Forrest Brown, Holly Yan and Rebecca Stewart contributed to this report.")
Apart from the awkward writing style (high school students), It was essentially a commentary, rather than a report, attempting to plant seeds of discord into complacent minds. Nonsense so blatant that Wikipedia has tags for it ("who?", "citation needed", etc). Here are two clear examples, amid many more subtle ones:
1. "Observers warned that the expected Republican gains offer little chance of compromise or bipartisan approaches on major issues." What observers? Who? Five kids eating ice cream cones on the side of the road? Retired veterans helping at the polling stations? Or a left-wing CNN staff inserting its own commentary?
2. "Voters' anxiety over a stubborn jobless rate and troubled economy helped propel Republicans to a sweeping takeover of the House of Representatives and a stronger presence in state offices in the midterm elections, projections show." Whose projections, what kind of projections, how were they made, what is their error? Citation needed ...
That sentence may also be understood as propaganda, lying about reality to get their readers distracted from the real reasons people voted: Perhaps it's illegal immigration, the lack of border protection (drug cartels, murder, prostitution/sex slavery, many issues here), taxpayer-funded abortion, federal control of public education, federal social programs and agendas detrimental to society that got people voting ... But no, none of these issues are important -- it was the unemployment rate of 9% and a large federal debt that "helped Republicans win".
Obvious "reader manipulation phrases" include things like the GOP "seizing control" of legislative chambers; you can go through the article with a highlighter if you like. The article is filled with such attempts to persuade the reader to certain conclusions (i.e. that so-called 'Republicans' are bad, that so-called 'Democrats' did nothing wrong, and that the only problems that exist are really complicated and abstract, and likely aren't their fault).
I don't know why I once thought CNN was such a good source for information -- it's clear that they're not. Perhaps they once were. I hope others see their manipulative and misleading commentary for what it is. I really think many people are led by the nose by the dominant "news networks", and form their conclusions based on not-so-subtle sentences like that "Observers warned that" ... They (i.e. all the dominant news networks, but primarily Reuters and the Associated Press, mirrored by the New York Times) tried to do the same thing with Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church earlier this year, except even worse -- they tried to create a news thread (by reporting half of a story and heavily quoting a select few hateful, greedy lawyers) and then referred to their own articles again and again as "startling revelations", "the recently controversial", etc., even though the "startling revelations" were about events that were several decades old and in many cases already dealt with. It was effectively simple mudslinging.
Now a side-topic (really, this should be a separate post), a question that raised itself as I read through that article I lambasted above:
Another "seed of discord" they're planting is the matter of race, once again. (Actually, this reporting may be genuine, rather than an attempt at manipulation -- some people are highly caught up in the matter of race, so I could see this as genuine reporting, however unfortunate that there is a presumed need for this information.) They make clear that no people with black skin will be in the U.S. Senate, and of course they use the phrase "African American", perhaps to keep people thinking that black Americans are somehow different from other Americans. Am I somehow different from other Americans (those with Russian or Asian ancestors, for example) because my ancestors came from European nations? I must not be, because I'm simply "an American" or "White". Good, thank God I fit in with everyone else.
Referring to blacks as "African Americans" more readily allows for the "us versus them" game to be played by those seeking political power. "Look at that, you African (American). Nothing but Mister Whitey up there in the U.S. Senate. Sure wish you had come out and voted for some Democrats to help Obama" is how that paragraph in CNN's article may be understood. It's obvious that politicians have been playing this game; that's a big reason so many blacks voted for Obama in 2008. Let me recount an event in my life:
The night of the election, I walked out of my dorm room, rather sullen (because I knew how heavily Obama would promote abortion) and I heard cheering in a room down the hall, the room of two black guys. I knocked on their door, came in and hung out with them for a little while. (Their room was very clean and tidy; I think I would have liked being better friends with them.) They had the TV on, and Obama's acceptance speech was playing. (It was a little disturbing that he appeared to be standing with a large sheet of glass to one side (bullet-proof?), but perhaps it was windy.) They were ecstatic, pumpin' their fists in the air and saying, "Boy, look at that! Look at that! I never thought I see the day! Look at that!" I was quiet, and sat there with them watching the TV.
I think it went to commercial at some point, or perhaps Obama was talking about the keywords hope, change and progress and we weren't really listening ... I don't have a very clear memory of the sequence of actions leading up to this point, only of the final moments: I asked them (perhaps as I was leaving) whether they knew what Obama supported, or perhaps I told them that I could not be happy about Obama getting elected, and I told them about how he supported abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy, and in saying this made clear to them what abortion was, saying something to the effect of "you know, abortion is when they kill the baby inside the mother's womb" ... (Abortionists try to make it so abstract and difficult to understand, with phrases like "surgical pregnancy termination". I called the "Penn Family Care Center" recently and asked whether they performed abortions. There was a dramatic pause, and the secretary/operator replied, "Our reproductive health services include surgical pregnancy termination." She would not say "yes" or acknowledge the word "abortion" or even that such "services" were "performed". Getting back to the story ...) Immediately their faces fell and one became confused. (I think part of his confusion came from being so elated, and then hearing something that was clearly negative in an objective sense (i.e. "this good thing is not good"), and, not being prepared to come down from the feeling of elation, he was not sure how to respond.) Perhaps I went so far as to tell them of Obama's plans to have us pay for women to have their children murdered (i.e. abortion); the so-called "Freedom Of Choice Act" had already come onto the scene by that point, and I'd seen Obama pledge to the so-called "Planned Parenthood" his support of FOCA if elected, as well as 'everything he could' to 'ensure that women everywhere have equal protection of privacy and full reproductive health services'. (It's such diabolical word manipulation, isn't it? "1984"-Orwellian-doublethink-style, that people nod their heads to the idea that "protection of privacy" and "reproductive health" means "killing of human baby".)
I think many if not most blacks in Tennessee are Protestant Christian, and I'm pretty sure they were both Protestant Christian. (I think I saw one guy wearing a gold cross necklace before, etc. I wish I could remember their names, but I was only in the dorm to sleep, really, and our relationship did not go much farther than saying hello in the hallways.) Although blacks lose their children to abortion more than whites in terms of percentage, most are against it once they realize what it is -- there is great confusion among poor blacks about what abortion is, and it is no surprise that abortion facilities are threatened by external ultrasound: When women see the baby and realize it's a baby (not an "undesirable condition" or "a blob of various tissue masses"), they usually keep him. My point is that I left with the impression that they previously had no idea that Obama supported baby-killing (abortion), and they were somber, more subdued when I left. They were previously rejoicing that Obama was black, and I got the strong impression that, if they voted, then they voted for him because he was black.
I'm not making any conclusions about them, other than I think that I would like being friends with them and that they watch too much television. (I'd hear their TV on often.) My point is that people (not only blacks but whites as well) are being conditioned to consider race as an important factor, when they are saturated with media that refers to Americans that are black as "African Americans", and Americans that are white as "Americans". It is a contributing influence, is what I am trying to say, and for CNN to report that "there will be no African Americans in the U.S. Senate" simply serves to promote the idea that "a U.S. Senate without blacks is flawed" -- because, if race does not matter, then it logically follows that it does not matter what races are in the U.S. Senate -- and caters to those who are hung up over whether someone is white or black ... "If he's not African (American), then he must not be representing me, because I'm an African (American)" ...
I've said a lot, and more than I thought I would say. It's difficult to articulate some of these ideas, but I've tried.
Apart from the awkward writing style (high school students), It was essentially a commentary, rather than a report, attempting to plant seeds of discord into complacent minds. Nonsense so blatant that Wikipedia has tags for it ("who?", "citation needed", etc). Here are two clear examples, amid many more subtle ones:
1. "Observers warned that the expected Republican gains offer little chance of compromise or bipartisan approaches on major issues." What observers? Who? Five kids eating ice cream cones on the side of the road? Retired veterans helping at the polling stations? Or a left-wing CNN staff inserting its own commentary?
2. "Voters' anxiety over a stubborn jobless rate and troubled economy helped propel Republicans to a sweeping takeover of the House of Representatives and a stronger presence in state offices in the midterm elections, projections show." Whose projections, what kind of projections, how were they made, what is their error? Citation needed ...
That sentence may also be understood as propaganda, lying about reality to get their readers distracted from the real reasons people voted: Perhaps it's illegal immigration, the lack of border protection (drug cartels, murder, prostitution/sex slavery, many issues here), taxpayer-funded abortion, federal control of public education, federal social programs and agendas detrimental to society that got people voting ... But no, none of these issues are important -- it was the unemployment rate of 9% and a large federal debt that "helped Republicans win".
Obvious "reader manipulation phrases" include things like the GOP "seizing control" of legislative chambers; you can go through the article with a highlighter if you like. The article is filled with such attempts to persuade the reader to certain conclusions (i.e. that so-called 'Republicans' are bad, that so-called 'Democrats' did nothing wrong, and that the only problems that exist are really complicated and abstract, and likely aren't their fault).
I don't know why I once thought CNN was such a good source for information -- it's clear that they're not. Perhaps they once were. I hope others see their manipulative and misleading commentary for what it is. I really think many people are led by the nose by the dominant "news networks", and form their conclusions based on not-so-subtle sentences like that "Observers warned that" ... They (i.e. all the dominant news networks, but primarily Reuters and the Associated Press, mirrored by the New York Times) tried to do the same thing with Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church earlier this year, except even worse -- they tried to create a news thread (by reporting half of a story and heavily quoting a select few hateful, greedy lawyers) and then referred to their own articles again and again as "startling revelations", "the recently controversial", etc., even though the "startling revelations" were about events that were several decades old and in many cases already dealt with. It was effectively simple mudslinging.
Now a side-topic (really, this should be a separate post), a question that raised itself as I read through that article I lambasted above:
Another "seed of discord" they're planting is the matter of race, once again. (Actually, this reporting may be genuine, rather than an attempt at manipulation -- some people are highly caught up in the matter of race, so I could see this as genuine reporting, however unfortunate that there is a presumed need for this information.) They make clear that no people with black skin will be in the U.S. Senate, and of course they use the phrase "African American", perhaps to keep people thinking that black Americans are somehow different from other Americans. Am I somehow different from other Americans (those with Russian or Asian ancestors, for example) because my ancestors came from European nations? I must not be, because I'm simply "an American" or "White". Good, thank God I fit in with everyone else.
Referring to blacks as "African Americans" more readily allows for the "us versus them" game to be played by those seeking political power. "Look at that, you African (American). Nothing but Mister Whitey up there in the U.S. Senate. Sure wish you had come out and voted for some Democrats to help Obama" is how that paragraph in CNN's article may be understood. It's obvious that politicians have been playing this game; that's a big reason so many blacks voted for Obama in 2008. Let me recount an event in my life:
The night of the election, I walked out of my dorm room, rather sullen (because I knew how heavily Obama would promote abortion) and I heard cheering in a room down the hall, the room of two black guys. I knocked on their door, came in and hung out with them for a little while. (Their room was very clean and tidy; I think I would have liked being better friends with them.) They had the TV on, and Obama's acceptance speech was playing. (It was a little disturbing that he appeared to be standing with a large sheet of glass to one side (bullet-proof?), but perhaps it was windy.) They were ecstatic, pumpin' their fists in the air and saying, "Boy, look at that! Look at that! I never thought I see the day! Look at that!" I was quiet, and sat there with them watching the TV.
I think it went to commercial at some point, or perhaps Obama was talking about the keywords hope, change and progress and we weren't really listening ... I don't have a very clear memory of the sequence of actions leading up to this point, only of the final moments: I asked them (perhaps as I was leaving) whether they knew what Obama supported, or perhaps I told them that I could not be happy about Obama getting elected, and I told them about how he supported abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy, and in saying this made clear to them what abortion was, saying something to the effect of "you know, abortion is when they kill the baby inside the mother's womb" ... (Abortionists try to make it so abstract and difficult to understand, with phrases like "surgical pregnancy termination". I called the "Penn Family Care Center" recently and asked whether they performed abortions. There was a dramatic pause, and the secretary/operator replied, "Our reproductive health services include surgical pregnancy termination." She would not say "yes" or acknowledge the word "abortion" or even that such "services" were "performed". Getting back to the story ...) Immediately their faces fell and one became confused. (I think part of his confusion came from being so elated, and then hearing something that was clearly negative in an objective sense (i.e. "this good thing is not good"), and, not being prepared to come down from the feeling of elation, he was not sure how to respond.) Perhaps I went so far as to tell them of Obama's plans to have us pay for women to have their children murdered (i.e. abortion); the so-called "Freedom Of Choice Act" had already come onto the scene by that point, and I'd seen Obama pledge to the so-called "Planned Parenthood" his support of FOCA if elected, as well as 'everything he could' to 'ensure that women everywhere have equal protection of privacy and full reproductive health services'. (It's such diabolical word manipulation, isn't it? "1984"-Orwellian-doublethink-style, that people nod their heads to the idea that "protection of privacy" and "reproductive health" means "killing of human baby".)
I think many if not most blacks in Tennessee are Protestant Christian, and I'm pretty sure they were both Protestant Christian. (I think I saw one guy wearing a gold cross necklace before, etc. I wish I could remember their names, but I was only in the dorm to sleep, really, and our relationship did not go much farther than saying hello in the hallways.) Although blacks lose their children to abortion more than whites in terms of percentage, most are against it once they realize what it is -- there is great confusion among poor blacks about what abortion is, and it is no surprise that abortion facilities are threatened by external ultrasound: When women see the baby and realize it's a baby (not an "undesirable condition" or "a blob of various tissue masses"), they usually keep him. My point is that I left with the impression that they previously had no idea that Obama supported baby-killing (abortion), and they were somber, more subdued when I left. They were previously rejoicing that Obama was black, and I got the strong impression that, if they voted, then they voted for him because he was black.
I'm not making any conclusions about them, other than I think that I would like being friends with them and that they watch too much television. (I'd hear their TV on often.) My point is that people (not only blacks but whites as well) are being conditioned to consider race as an important factor, when they are saturated with media that refers to Americans that are black as "African Americans", and Americans that are white as "Americans". It is a contributing influence, is what I am trying to say, and for CNN to report that "there will be no African Americans in the U.S. Senate" simply serves to promote the idea that "a U.S. Senate without blacks is flawed" -- because, if race does not matter, then it logically follows that it does not matter what races are in the U.S. Senate -- and caters to those who are hung up over whether someone is white or black ... "If he's not African (American), then he must not be representing me, because I'm an African (American)" ...
I've said a lot, and more than I thought I would say. It's difficult to articulate some of these ideas, but I've tried.