• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no echo chambers. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! You can also register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.

Boycott CNN

prudence

Cyburbian
Messages
688
Points
20
I just received from a friend of mine. He is a planner with a Milwaukee suburb, and a grad from the same program as myself and jfortin.

Please bear in mind that CNN carried a decidedly anti-war and anit-Bush slant to their coverage during the pre-war.

Dear CNN:

I read the New York Times today and I have decided that your news network is a disgrace to mankind. Eason Jordan, Chief News Executive of CNN, must feel so proud as a journalist that he knew about all the arocities in Iraq for twelve years and withheld CNN reporters from disclosing this information to the public in fear that CNN would be kicked out of Iraq by the Evil Dictator. Everyone knows your network is liberal beyond reality. However, political views and slants aside, the actions of your network are indefensible beyond belief and I hold CNN responsible for the advent of this war. Had this information been made public a diplomatic solution may have been possible. I have a family member and a close friend fighting in this war for the good side. I will encourage everyone I know to no longer watch your repulsive network.
CLICK HERE FOR THE STORY
 

plankton

Cyburbian
Messages
751
Points
21
Sorry but I find it impossible to deem any of the american corporate media outlets as being "liberal beyond reality". I hope you still don't believe Ronald Reagan's depiction of all american media outlets as being 'liberal'. This myth has been disproven several times over and many people have attested to the shadiness that surrounded this corporate-driven contention. There's a new book out about this. I think it's entitled "What Liberal Media" (sorry, don't know the author). You could read some of Gore Vidal's writings for more info. on this topic.

Do you realize that all private media outlets in this country are owned by very few (three of four; e.g., Clear Broadcasting) corporations? The giantism of our media outlets should be raising eyebrows, but of course, none of the media outlets are covering this phenomenon. Everyone should be aware of further deregulation that the FCC is curently working on but good luck finding articles on this topic in the mainstream press. In Portland, the local news outlets were informed that "coverage of the war protests would be bad for their bottom line."

I have no problem with you disliking CNN, just turn on Fox or your local news programming. But please know that corporate-driven media and corporate-driven government spells f-a-s-c-i-s-m.

As a patriotic american, don't you think everyone deserves access to both sides of a story??
 

Wannaplan?

Galactic Superstar
Messages
3,150
Points
28
prudence: Hmmm, I'm not too sure what your friend is getting at. The letter that was sent to CNN misses the point, I think.

Mr. Jordan was obviously writing a piece about the atrocities in Iraq that his news organization, if reported, would have led to the deaths of many individuals who were not a part of the machinations of Saddam Hussein's family. Why would CNN report these stories if they knew their informants were going to be killed? And why would a dissident Iraqi want to share any information with CNN if the informant knew that CNN would go ahead and a report a story that would ultimately lead to the murder of these dissidents and informants? Your friend fails to realize these atrocities would have happened regardless if CNN or any other individual or entity knew about them and reported them back to the American people. Obviously the whole world knew about the thuggish nature of Saddam Hussein's government: King Hussein of Jordan could have easily held a press conference describing the grisly details of the deaths of the Iraqis who were protected in his country.

If anything, Mr. Jordan's NY Times piece appears to acknowledge the threat that Saddam Hussein was: "I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed." If anything, Mr. Jordan's NY Times piece appears to acknowledge that President Bush has done the right thing.

I don't watch CNN, so I don't know too much about CNN's supposed anti-war, anti-Bush bias. However, if CNN's reporting does lean in the direction of criticising the war and criticising President Bush, then I wonder, how does criticism translate into an anti-war, anti-Bush stance? Criticism is just that: criticism. Of course, CNN has millions of viewers and could potentially shape the opinions of the American public. Obviously, if you are on the fence about how you feel about Preseident Bush and Operation Iraqi Freedom, then yes, CNN could certainly shape your opinion. But to me, that seems valid.

CNN is doing it's job: I'm thinking of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights - American policy and American Presidents have always been analyzed, criticised, and lampooned.

That's our right.

As Americans.

Even during wartime.
 
Last edited:

Zoning Goddess

Cyburbian
Messages
13,853
Points
39
Well, I guess I'm just dumb since I keep watching CNN; don't they tell us they're the most trusted ones?

All the networks have to have their own agendas; have to watch them all to get all the stories.
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,853
Points
26
Unfortunately mass media is way far from objectivity. CNN for me is as subjective as al-jazeera.
They sell the news to people, and depending on the majority of the people's belief or political and other ideals they focus on certain things of the news, to a point where it loses objectivity.
So in the end to have a more real picture of what's going on you have to see several news stations and several other sources.

Remember: Nobody holds the Absolute Truth. So the broader opinions you hear, the "truth" will be more real and more true.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,080
Points
34
Al Jezeera, CNN, NBC, FAX, etc. - they are all biased and only report the news thats sensational or sappy anyway. The only place to turn for objectivity is NPR.








I can hear El Guapo growling from all the way up here in Wisconsin...
 

pete-rock

Cyburbian
Messages
1,551
Points
24
Zoning Goddess said:
All the networks have to have their own agendas; have to watch them all to get all the stories.
I've always felt that if you follow the spectrum of opinion, the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think it's good to get your news from both Fox and from NPR, for example, to at least find out what's on the minds of the typical viewers/listeners and sort through any slant that exists.

As far as CNN goes, I can't believe they suppressed stories to advance any political agenda. I read the story, and I think they didn't report on stuff TO SAVE LIVES. And anyone who was paying attention to news in the '90s beyond OJ and Monica Lewinsky knew that Saddam was solidifying his hold on his rule in Iraq.

Holding CNN responsible for the "advent of the war" because of a perceived "anti-war, anti-Bush" agenda verges on reckless.
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,853
Points
26
Can I boycott CNN by watching the channel while constantly booing at my TV and flipping off to the reporters? In an attitude much like the french wine boycotters :D ;)

I'm sure CNN is very concerned that I don't boo to my TV set or flip off to it. Just like the french wine makers are very concerned about people buying their wine and later throwing it at the street.... :p :D
 
Top