CNN negative profile of Kerry

Clancie

Illuminator
C
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
3,021
Just when Kerry seems on a roll, Wolf Blitzer did a profile of him today that was quite negative (and, I felt, quite slanted).

He emphasized Kerry's wealth (and noted, kind of cattily, that he married "two wealthy women"... indicated some considered him "reckless" in Vietnam...said he never missed a chance for a photo op with a veteran (and then showed the clip of the man whose life he'd saved--a man he hadn't seen for 20+ years who showed up to endorse him in Iowa. I thought that was a particularly cheap shot).

Blitzer also talked about how Kerry had returned from Vietnam a "bitter" young man, organized anti-war demonstrations, even threw medals on the ground in protest--"later admitting that they weren't his own medals", (I'm just quoting from memory).

The Blitzer piece made Kerry's election to office in Massachussetts seem rather opportunistic--opportunism seeming a much hinted at theme--and, of course, he's a liberal (will those photo ops with Ted Kennedy help or hurt him?)

I thought the timing was strange on a day when he's been endorsed by Senator Hollings and is the new favorite in N.H, but...maybe it's a good thing to bring it out sooner rather than later.

It seemed like a good preview of what Karl Rove probably also has in mind....
 
Clancie said:
It seemed like a good preview of what Karl Rove probably also has in mind....
Click to expand...

It seems amazing that you spend time whining about this, while you have a growing number of unanswered questions and unaddressed points dangling over your head....

No, forget that. It makes perfectly sense!
 
So much for the liberal media. I'm sure the conservatives will just find a way to spin this. They'll probably say that CNN doesn't like Kerry because CNN supports Dean.
 
Posted by clk

I'm sure the conservatives will just find a way to spin this. They'll probably say that CNN doesn't like Kerry because CNN supports Dean.
Click to expand...
Yes, there must be something (but not that! I've seen that awful Dean clip from Iowa at least 20 times on CNN in the last two days! Right before the Kerry story, they had one about Dean and his wife being interviewed by Diane Sawyer tonight....and compared it to "damage control" of Bill Clinton/Hillary interview after Gennifer Flowers "introduced" Clinton to the country!!! It also showed Ed Muskie ruining his candidacy in NH--and permanently--when he cried about the paper maligning his wife. Talk about media bias!!!)

Maybe the spin is...CNN only wants a -real- liberal like...Sharpton? :confused:
 
Well Blitzer is a Republican from what I understand. I haven't really watched CNN for a couple of years (except for some of their CNN Presents shows), but I thought that Blitzer was pretty good at keeping his biases from interfering with his reporting. Things have changed at CNN, maybe he is editorializing more now.
 
BTox said:


Really? I wouldn't have thought that. Any source?
Click to expand...

I remember it coming up in context of some Clinton policies when he was covering the White House. Something about Wolf being fairly pissed about something but I noticed that it didn't seem to effect his coverage of it. It was mentioned in passing about Wolf being a Republican. It could have just been political gossip, but I was reminded of it by the original post.
 
For today, Kerry is the democrat front runner. Whoever the front runner is gets scrutinized.

its how things get done, same thing happened to Dean
 
Ignatius said:
Well Blitzer is a Republican from what I understand. I haven't really watched CNN for a couple of years (except for some of their CNN Presents shows), but I thought that Blitzer was pretty good at keeping his biases from interfering with his reporting. Things have changed at CNN, maybe he is editorializing more now.
Click to expand...

You'd have to drag a reporter's personal leanings out, but 9 times out of 10 you'll get some degree of liberal. Not an insult, simply an observation of those who DO declare a preference, which they really have no business doing in the first place.

It has nothing to do with Wolf Blitzer, and everything to do with CNN's programming department, which like every other news organization in the universe likes to take potshots... er, I mean closely examine... whoever's number one at the moment.

Dean got positive press as a curiosity early on. Then people began to realize how well he was polling. He was the de facto leaidng candidate, so the press got critical and less flattering. Now Dean's off the hot seat, and Kerry's on, so it's his turn to for a colonoscopy. It's nothing to do with liberal bias so much as giving the audience what they want... dirt. And dirt never matters more than when it's on the leading candidate.

If Kerry stumbles and Edwards becomes the focus, expect the same treatment. As we get closer to the primary, you'll see the press's recent positive upswing in reporting on Bush turrn ugly as well. After all, as the incumbent, he's number one. Dig the dirt. Particularly when they've been going easier on him lately.

It's always been that way, and it makes a certain kind of sense. The likeliest candidate should have the closest examination because there's less chance that it will amount to wasted work. Now if only Sharpton would draw that kind of attention... you may have noticed it finally kept Jesse Jackson embezzling in private rather than on the stump.
 
but 9 times out of 10 you'll get some degree of liberal
Click to expand...
Jocko, I'm really not trying to chase a particular point here, but I'm not quite sure anout the meaning of this line. Are you trying to say that your observations lead you to believe that 9 out of 10 journalists have only a lean to the left? Or, do 9 out of ten journalists simply lean left, as proven by your personal observations?

Could we as easily say that '9 times out of 10 you'll get some degree of [conservative]?' Wouldn't this statement be equally meaningless?

I'm just curious, thanks.
 
Jocko said:


You'd have to drag a reporter's personal leanings out, but 9 times out of 10 you'll get some degree of liberal. Not an insult, simply an observation of those who DO declare a preference, which they really have no business doing in the first place.
Click to expand...
I don't know about "9 times out of 10", but I would agree that journalism seems to attract people that tend to lean left (although this may be changing a bit). It is just one of those jobs that seems more appealing to one side than the other. You don't run into many hardcore conservative social workers or leftist, tree-hugging Southern Baptist Ministers. That is why it was notable when I first heard that Blitzer was a conservative.

I would actually kind of like to know a journalists political leanings. That way if they are completely unbiased in their reporting, I find it admirable and have more respect for them or in cases like this at least I would have a better idea of what their motivation was in the first place.
[/B][/QUOTE]

It has nothing to do with Wolf Blitzer, and everything to do with CNN's programming department, which like every other news organization in the universe likes to take potshots... er, I mean closely examine... whoever's number one at the moment.

Dean got positive press as a curiosity early on. Then people began to realize how well he was polling. He was the de facto leaidng candidate, so the press got critical and less flattering. Now Dean's off the hot seat, and Kerry's on, so it's his turn to for a colonoscopy. It's nothing to do with liberal bias so much as giving the audience what they want... dirt. And dirt never matters more than when it's on the leading candidate.

If Kerry stumbles and Edwards becomes the focus, expect the same treatment. As we get closer to the primary, you'll see the press's recent positive upswing in reporting on Bush turrn ugly as well. After all, as the incumbent, he's number one. Dig the dirt. Particularly when they've been going easier on him lately.

It's always been that way, and it makes a certain kind of sense. The likeliest candidate should have the closest examination because there's less chance that it will amount to wasted work. Now if only Sharpton would draw that kind of attention... you may have noticed it finally kept Jesse Jackson embezzling in private rather than on the stump.
Click to expand...

You and corplinx could very well be right that this is just the press buggering him to hear how he squeals because he is now the frontrunner. I don't think you will see the same treatment of Bush (at least from the mainstream press), because there is no need for a Republican primary and it isn't like they have to introduce this guy to the nation.
 
Lazarus said:
Jocko, I'm really not trying to chase a particular point here, but I'm not quite sure anout the meaning of this line. Are you trying to say that your observations lead you to believe that 9 out of 10 journalists have only a lean to the left? Or, do 9 out of ten journalists simply lean left, as proven by your personal observations?
Click to expand...

My observations, and much analysis by those in the know. Are you assuming I mean that as an insult? Your defensive tone confuses me. There are a hundred books out there by reputable sources who will confirm the general - note, GENERAL - liberal beliefs of the press. I recommend "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg for an extreme example.

The irony, as described by Goldberg, is that some of these guys are way left and still consider themselves moderate. He does agood job of explaining and demonstrating why they aren't. Goldberg doesn't say that's necessarily bad - neither do I - but it is important to keep in mind when a story just doesn't smell right.

Could we as easily say that '9 times out of 10 you'll get some degree of [conservative]?' Wouldn't this statement be equally meaningless?

I'm just curious, thanks.
Click to expand...

Only if you're talking about Fox News or Limbaugh's radio show. In the marketplace of ideas the American media is supposed to be, I'm glad that other viewpoints are represented as well. Since true objectivity is well nigh impossible, a nice average is the best you can hope for.
 
Ignatius said:

You and corplinx could very well be right that this is just the press buggering him to hear how he squeals because he is now the frontrunner. I don't think you will see the same treatment of Bush (at least from the mainstream press), because there is no need for a Republican primary and it isn't like they have to introduce this guy to the nation.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant in the general election. Right now the Dems are easier targets, but Bush will have his day in the barrel too, soon enough. Especially with so much good news of late, it's like a sick compulsion to even things out.
 
Jocko said:


My observations, and much analysis by those in the know. Are you assuming I mean that as an insult? Your defensive tone confuses me. There are a hundred books out there by reputable sources who will confirm the general - note, GENERAL - liberal beliefs of the press. I recommend "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg for an extreme example.
Click to expand...


And I recommend a good copy of "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky if you want to know how the current sociopolitical realm actually influences the media, and visa versa.
 
Theodore Kurita said:



And I recommend a good copy of "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky if you want to know how the current sociopolitical realm actually influences the media, and visa versa.
Click to expand...

Noam Chomsky. Gotcha. No thanks, I prefer legitimate sources that were actually involved in mass media in a significant way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom