CNN seems to really love the war coverage

[oberliner]

Maps and generals and names and circles.

[unblock]

1. The media has loved to report on wars forever.

Think Hearst and yellow journalism back in the Spanish-American war

[misanthrope]

3. Because people love to read/watch it

They're following the money.

[Fred Sanders]

31. The media destroyed the Dixie Chicks because they opposed the media frenzied Iraq fake war...

why would they not be creaming their jeans again, and bullying anyone who dissents...war equals ratings...and money! You can dissent on anything in America...but dissent on war and you better get out of the country.

Iraq proved forever the American media is a tool of the American military...100% compliant...the exact opposite of what their role should be.

[spanone]

2. they were all over the Iraq fiasco...

[janx]

10. Not as much as MSNBC was.

Shortly after that, MSNBC decided that it was economically safe and profitable to become the "liberal" station.

I will never forget it.

[FarCenter]

4. Ratings?

[appalachiablue]

5. War, combat, violence and drama bring eyeballs/viewers which

increases big revenue/profits from advertisers. Big bucks for big media.

[workinclasszero]

6. Some things never change

[UTUSN]

7. Um, is CNN supposed to ignore certain events?!1

[janx]

9. Agreed. Especially since CNN is best known for international

news.

[UTUSN]

11. Thumbs up, thanks!1

[janx]

12. Do you remember that?

It was obscenely opportunistic in the $$$ ratings world. And it worked.

[oberliner]

16. They have barely talked about international news at all the past few weeks

Been mostly Stormy Daniels and the like.

[janx]

20. Oberliner, that is not true.

CNN has grown a little more tabloid for the U.S. masses, that's true, but they still cover international news extensively. Also, are you aware of their coverage in other countries? For instance, if you go to Europe, you get CNN International. The coverage there is different (and the commercials are not as obnoxious). I cut cable years ago at home but still see it when I travel.

[lunasun]

27. +1 agree

[Kirk Lover]

14. Some people will take any opportunity to knock the media...I guess they are taking their cue from

trashbag tRUMP.

[oberliner]

15. Definitely not

Just saying they seem very excited about this.

[janx]

23. Excited? Concerned?

It's important, and that's their job. Would you rather people didn't know? I hate television hype too, but I'm glad they are there to report it. Again, keep in mind that I am don't have a television on and am accessing this info online and occasionally via Sirius/XM.

[Nevernose]

8. Wargasm

n/t

[Laura PourMeADrink]

38. Brilliant duzy!!!

[Exotica]

43. MINISTRY - Wargasm

[Ferrets are Cool]

13. The same reason that Weather Channel LOVES hurricanes...RATINGS!!!

No one watched CNN until the first invasion of Iraq. Or so it seemed.

[janx]

17. You must be relatively young.

CNN's coverage of world events is well established.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_CNN_(1980%E2%80%932003)

[oberliner]

18. Irony of saying someone must be relatively young and then using Wikipedia as a source

[janx]

26. I teach college English.

I'm capable of vetting Wiki entries re basic information and have a good grasp of information literacy. I'm also 60 years old.

The reason I mentioned age at all was because of the reference to CNN and its coverage of Iraq. CNN has a long history of good international reporting well before then and since. I remember also appreciating the independent reporters published by Harper's at the same time.

[tavernier]

45. But it is fake news.

Didn’t you get the memo?

[Ferrets are Cool]

30. I stand by my statement...

(and I am older than you). CNN became the news of note when Wolfe was dodging missile attacks. We can agree to disagree.

[Kirk Lover]

34. You mean when Bernard Shaw was dodging during the Gulf War? So CNN has been news of

note pretty much since it's inception. Not to mention they were the pioneer. I guess it's just not highbrow enough for you perhaps? I notice that a lot around here ...there are "news snobs". Not saying you are one!!! I'm not looking for trouble !

[Ferrets are Cool]

44. No sense in arguing.

We just remember history differently. Hell, back then even ESPN had their own news dept. I remember getting up in the mornings and looking forward to getting the national news from them.
Oh how things have changed.

[jalan48]

19. I notice they never talk about the cost. If this were a program meant to help poor Americans the

panel would have to weigh it in terms of the "cost to the taxpayers". Somehow, our military always gets a blank check with few questions asked.

[oberliner]

21. Exactly

Just the video-game elements. Which targets?

[Initech]

22. Same shit, different year.

[Awsi Dooger]

24. CNN is doing a great job

These strikes deserve to be the full story tonight, with military experts weighing in. That would be true regardless of president or how he/she is viewed at the moment.

MSNBC verified that it is minor league compared to CNN when Brian Williams a few minutes ago cut away from Syria discussion to start talking politics again.

[rockfordfile]

25. CNN is terrible.

They were just as much a cheerleader for the lie/Iraq war.

[Kirk Lover]

33. I know how dare they have military experts on. Look there is a large segment of people who

want to knock the media for whatever and whatever. It's really sad that they are doing RUMP's work for him ..not sure why they don't get it.

[Atticus]

28. "Missiles and bombers and blood! Oh, my!". nt

[leftstreet]

29. Any photos of Trump on an aircraft carrier in a codpiece yet?

[chillfactor]

32. thanks for the heads up

usually switch to CNN when reruns start on MSNBC..will watch something else tonight.

[mn9driver]

35. CNN loves war. The first gulf war made the network.

They were among the biggest cheerleaders for the second one.

[Awsi Dooger]

36. Douglas Brinkley is excellent

He's commenting now and is yet another huge advantage for CNN above MSNBC

[Garrett78]

37. I don't have TV and haven't for years, but I have distinct memories of...

...networks treating strikes as though they were fireworks displays on the 4th of July.

[lindysalsagal]

39. Midnight, eastern time, CNN has someone in Syria, but not at any of the attack sites.

MSNBC really can't do "on location" unless it's convenient, so there's that.

But also, there isn't any photography of syrian damage or local syrians, so, the locations may be too spread out and/or in dangerous places.

Honestly, I don't want to see journalists abducted or killed just so my eyes can be entertained in my livingroom. So, if they have anyone in a safer Syrian location, that's probably as close as they should get.

The US military has footage of the damage, I'm sure, but hopefully, it won't be released for the news.

At least the local person said syria is reporting no deaths and only a few injuries, but they may not have instant ways of collecting such information, so it may be days in coming.

All I know is I woke up middle of the night, and the msnbc coverage wasn't really factual, just opinion, so I switched to cnn and got whatever limited info there was.

40 min. later, even cnn just switched back to cohen, et al.

So, I guess I'm saying that I'm glad we have both and that they're different. Not seeing a reason for a horserace between the two.

[sarcasmo]

40. War porn and yes, CNN loves war porn.

[LeftInTX]

41. So does the BBC

I had to run to the store and the first thing I hear on the radio is Cheeto's voice.
That's all they talked about on the radio. On the way to the store. I spent 20 minutes in the store and that's what they were talking about on the way home. They were even interviewing someone from the Rand Corporation.

[pansypoo53219]

42. RATINGS WINNERS IS WAR COVERAGE. why do you think wolfie is still there.