irstupid said:
1. I don't watch CNN, so don't know names. Hell I don't know any newsperson's name. I figure as soon as you know someone's name they are too famous and thus can hardly be trusted. But it was some black guy who speaks during their normal main hours. Someone who speaks on tv about Trump. A newscaster, not some CNN health guy. So say what you want about the relevance of a random CNN health guys opinion about Trump, but this guys opinion is what we see on TV.
2. All I saw was some video that said 2 of them were. If it was wrong, then so be it. Point is, my pulitzer prize winners knowledge goes as deep as Lois Lane. I'm under the impression that this is a prestigous award that should be given to only those that are of great skill and ethics. For one to resign (resign in this situation is the same as firing. It's like Nixon stepping down.) starts to give that award less meaning. It's like Obama winning the peace price before he even stepped into office, or was it like a month in. Either way, it demeans the accomplishment/award.
3. My argument is nothing about fake news. It's about CNN jumping hte gun and publishing click bait articles to get raitings. No apoligy or retraction can fix that. This is not some youtuber. This is supposed to be a national news station that is held to a higher degree. People of the highest caliber of education and skill shoudl be working here and trying to let the rest of the united stated or even world know of the news. Not some propoganda bullshit and hit peice or ratings grab. Whether its an error or fake news, neither shoudl happen. They need to do their homeworkd better. YOu don't write an article accusing the president of the united states of treason unless you have concrete proof. (yes this wasn't about trump directly, but indirectly. And as someone said, the top 7 stories on CNN today were about 1 trump tweet today. That is not the type of calliber I woudl excpect from a national news station. Anchorman 2 summed up our news stations perfectly.
|
Really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.
1) You're not involved with CNN, but somehow you made it to page 20+ of this thread without knowing the name of some black guy that's actually more important, trust me.
Now, I'll say this plainly: thinking that the entire Russia enquiry is made up because some people at CNN don't personally believe in it, is fucking moronic, and you need ZERO knowledge of CNN to arrive at this conclusion. Obviously you could have Googled it, but clearly you're not a fan of research.
2) Again, you admit willful ignorance to try and shield yourself from some mightily poor reasoning.
My point was that criticising CNN for the handling of the Scaramucci story is clearly in an effort to undermine something that makes the president scream at the telly.
Your point was that it was handled wrong, but you provided no reason why. Again, had CNN just kept the article up, we would be having no such conversation. But now you want to claim that it's worse, because you think that the Pulitzer prize is somehow a certificate saying "can't do no wrong", rather than an acknoledgement of a distinguished example in a particular category. How do I know this? Google.
3) You essentially launch in a ramble about how a channel you don't watch makes you very angry because it overreports on an issue you don't like.
How you'd know without watching it, I sure don't know.
I'd argue, that the President of the U.S.A. acting like a deranged lunatic to the cast of a morning show, while not as consequential as some of his other actions, sure as fuck is worth reporting. I'm sorry you don't hold your leaders to any standard, but be sure to criticize a channel you don't watch for covering something too much. You must have been super pissed at Hillary's e-mails occupying the election coverage, I'm sure.
I'm also sad to report CNN top stories are generated by traffic, so maybe read it if you want to influence those. But right, reading...
I can say that your criticism of a chnnel you don't watch on an issue you don't know about regarding a topic you don't understand has been illuminating on how to approach this thread.
P.S. If you want unfettered coverage of how Trump is the best little boy in the whole world, I'd recommend Fox News, or stuffing crayons up your nose.
