Reply #45: Wow. [View All]

[durutti]

CNN is Fox Lite. CNN was clearly pro-war.

When it was discovered that Hussein Kamel said there were no Iraqi WMDs, did CNN report it? No.

Did CNN exercise any skepticism toward Powell when he addressed the UN last February? No. In fact, I distinctly recall one anchor referring to his "evidence" as "overwhelming".

CNN routinely parroted the administration's lies. Saddam "had" (not "allegedly had") WMDs. He "kicked out" inspectors in 1998.

And let's not forget that CNN hit the big time as a Pentagon cheerleader during the first Gulf War.

There are no progressives on CNN -- at least none who are permitted to editorialize. They have Robert Novack, Tucker Carlson, and myriad other well-known conservatives. For the "liberal" side, they have New Democrats.

Let's take a look at CNN's "Reliable Sources", supposedly a show about media criticism. The guest list consists overwhelmingly of people who themselves work for mainstream media outlets, rendering the show fairly ineffective as a source of media criticism. Very rarely does the program host independent scholars or media critics or activists. More guests are culled from host Howard Kurtz's two employers (CNN and the Washington Post) than from any other source.

After those two sources, where do most guests come from? The National Review, with 12 NR guests over a one-year period. The most frequently appearing guests over that period were Laura Ingraham. The second most frequent guest was NR editor Rich Lowry.

The show's left-of-center guests were also less activist and ideological than their right-wing counterparts. There are National Review staff, but no one from The Nation or Mother Jones.

Or let's take a look at Crossfire. For their "left" hosts, they've had Tom Braden (ex-CIA), Michael Kinsley (who promoted Margaret Thatcher for President), Geraldine Ferraro (a moderate who supports the death penalty, school prayer, a bloated military budget, tax exemptions for religious schools that discriminate on the basis of race and sex, and criminalizing homosexuality), and New Democrat Bill Press.

During the Iraq war, CNN refused to cover civilian casualties, dismissing such coverage as "perverse".

And if you'll remember, at one point CNN wanted to have Rush Limbaugh on the network. In August, 2001, CNN chairman Walter Isaacson met with Republican legislators to discuss improving the relationship between CNN and the GOP.

Merely looking at headlines on CNN's Web page and somehow magically divining "bias" from them is unscientific and absurd.

As far as the Times goes: the New York Times has a reputation as the best, most important newspaper in the world. It wants to hold on to that reputation. Thus, it does showcase more diverse views than the media generally. However, it is by no means an organ of the left -- remember the Judith Miller articles of earlier this year? Its editorial line is that of establishment Democrats.

I don't read the Post enough to say much, but I can say that that paper was absolutely silent when 600+ protestors were illegally rounded up and hogtied last year.