Tag Archives: CNN


Truly objective journalism no longer exists.  The public doesn’t want it.  That’s the opinion I come to after seeing the sorry financial state of CNN .  It’s not that the network was scrupulously objective; they were not.  Nevertheless, the network’s attempts at neutrality have been honorable.  However, as a result they operate in the nether land of soft reporting.  CNN offers neither steak nor veggie platters so viewers go elsewhere for their daily feed.

FOX owns the right; its audience is loyal.  The audience is also big because FOX is honest.  MSNBC owns the left.  Its audience is very loyal but it’s small because MSNBC programming is more extreme and less honest.  If FOX’s audience is multiples of MSNBC’ audience, then isn’t FOX main stream and MSNBC something else?

There was a time when journalists saw themselves as on the front line of history with a solemn duty to record it accurately.  Now, Howard Zinn’s philosophy seems to rule the day.  Zinn taught that a journalist’s duty is to record or distort history in a manner that [the journalist believes] will lead to a better world, the truth is less important than the higher goal.  Good objective journalism breathed its last breath on June 14, 2008, the day Tim Russert died.  The nation lost a great man that day and a tradition died with him.


What’s your plan, CNN Candy Crowley asks.  To make everything better, Obama adviser David Fluff answers.  Those are goals Candy says.  We have more work to do the Fluff explains.  Good, but what’s your plan Candy asks again.  It’s the Republican’s fault says Fluff.  Is that your plan, Candy asks once more again.

Plouffe (It’s Plouffe, I’ve just been told but he seem more like fluff to me), Plouffe says we have done a lot of good.  Then he rattles off a list that includes patent reform for inventors but doesn’t include Obamacare, that’s smart.  His brag does include lowering taxes, that’s good.

How do you plan to do more in the four more than you did in the four before, Candy asks, what exactly is your plan.  Plouffe – Look, the people have a choice.  It’s Romney or us.  And Romney doesn’t have a plan.

Here’s the link. Play the video, see how close I came.




CNN host Don Lemon wants to plant the idea in your mind that Mitt Romney’s belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman is somehow equivalent to George Wallace’s stance that blacks should remain segregated forever.  Demonizing doesn’t get much more despicable than that.  Fortunately, it’s equally stupid.  When a black gay television host takes a religious belief held by 67% of the American people and calls it racist, the backlash will be far greater than any impact CNN or its host had hoped to make.

Few people today even know who George Wallace was.  No, he was not a news reporter.  He was elected Governor of Alabama in 1962 in a landslide on the promise to his constituents that he would fight to maintain segregation of blacks in America forever.  And he meant it.  He is also famous for standing in the doorway to an auditorium at the University of Alabama in a showdown with the federal government.  He stood in the doorway in order to block the entrance of two students because they were black.  George Wallace was, of course, a Democrat.

Now click this link and watch the CNN video.  It is very brief.

This is the type of journalism we are up against today.  One thing we have going for us is that the Left has not learned yet that they no longer have the only voice.  For years there was never a need to defend whatever they said.  As a result they set themselves up for easy ridicule and exposure of the nonsense and demagoguery they preach.

There is no KKK connection and the people know it.


After Gen. Douglas MacArthur was fired by President Truman, MacArthur famously said “Old soldiers never die.  They just fade away.”  That may be the case with old generals, but what do discarded politicians do?

They become talk show hosts.  Scott Johnson has a suggestion for CNN; they could take Andrew Weiner on as a co-host and call it the Spitzer-Weiner Report.  There is a risk.  The congressman’s style is even nastier than that of Keith Olbermann or Ed Schulz.  But if he succumbs to an undisciplined mouth they way those two did, there is always John Edwards.  It would still be an all Democrat, all star show.  Although, as Scott pointed out, Edwards may not be aailable immediately.

Just imagine.  It could be the Next Generation in cable news, a program centered on excuses for corruption and stories of great right wing conspiracies and conservative hackers concocting tales of sexual escapades as though they were real.  With no pretense of truthfulness, no claim to fairness in broadcasting it would be the ultimate Political Reality show.


Obama is not the only one with audacity. Wee though I may be, I have the audacity to call myself a member of “the press”, the great public press, the new press, the real press, the open press, the complete press. Freedom of the press applies equally to the New York Times, Huffington Post, Random Thots and the guy next door who started his first blog last Tuesday.

There is beauty, trash, idiocy, and profound thinking available to all, on the internet. There are lies too outrageous for the National Enquirer to publish and truths too enlightening for the New York Times to put in print. It’s there, the good, the bad; and the ugly. It’s all there. It is for the reader to discern and choose the good from the bad, the same as one does when choosing friends and companions. When government is given the power to control what our our eyes may see and what our ears may hear, the end of freedom is at the door.

The founders of this great nation trusted the people of this great nation more than they trusted the government of this great nation. The very first Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom from government control of speech, religion and the press. End of rant.

Why the rant? News anchors Kyra Philips and John Roberts, members of the press no less, are calling for the government, or someone to control the press, that’s why the rant. They don’t want CNN to be censored, of course, only the blogs.


“there’s going to come a point where something’s going to have to be done legally”. [legally = government]


“There has to be some point where there’s some accountability. And companies, especially in the media have to stop giving these anonymous bloggers credit,”

Then this idiocy – Roberts first points out that some countries, like Iran, are closed societies where the internet may be their only source of uncensored reporting, then adds:

“But when it comes to a society like ours, an open society, do there have to be (sic) some checks and balances, not national, but maybe website to website on who comments on things?”

Huh? Because ours is a free and open society we need to control the blogs? Mr. Roberts, as you might put it, ‘there do not have to be’.

Fear not, Congress will never enact a law rescinding freedom of speech.  If however, it ever comes up in a referendum, at least 3 votes would be assured, those of  Roberts, Philips and Rather.

Bob B

Bookmark and Share