CNN screws up again....

[Dr Mordrid]

It was bad enough that CNN admitted to very shoddy journalistic practices as regards not reporting all they knew about Saddams human rights violations. That one got 'em in trouble even with the liberal press.

This time prototype obituaries for celebrities that are still alive were accidently posted to their website

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/aptech_story.asp?category=1700&slug=CNN%20Premature%20Obits

It's nice in troubled times that you can depend on some things being consistant....

Dr. Mordrid

[The PIT]

Yes but what you don't realise these people are already dead. Someone forgot to tell you.

[Dr Mordrid]

Having alzheimers isn't funny, even a little.

Dr. Mordrid

[KvHagedorn]

He's talking about the pod people that have co-opted the bodies of all famous people since the late 40s.

[UtwigMU]

Well, it's normal for news agencies to have obituaries of famous people prepared and updated. (Sum up of biography, impact on history/culture...)

As death may happen unpredictably and especially printed and TV media need time for prepress / videoedit and all that requires research, it's wise to have obituaries ready - all media houses do this.

That said, the leaking of obituaries is unacceptable.

Regarding CNN and other news networks:
- They just tabloidically record minor events (like for instance Iraqis stealing gas from Iraqi's army military base) and pass them with major news (political talks, battles, agreements), thus lovering relevance of important events.
- Then they shift cameras from reporter to reporter who know jack shit (how could they if they're in another country) to comment on those minor events.
- Then experts come up that are asked to comment minor events and even if they know something, they are not challenged to demonstrate their expertise - IE piss-poor military analysis.

I mean regarding war in Iraq:
one knows, how manny divisions and equipmnent armies have and a person who knows about military could reasonably well piece strategy and goals/outcome from the data together.

- Then they just repeat same news over and over throughout the day.

- No analysis, no insight, no polemics among experts, no lookout through trends: IE DOW has fallen 20 points this morning, I mean this means jack sh*t. They could look at long term graph, parallel political and economic events, predict trends....

Also for instance all evolving events and conflicts are neglected and not subject to analysis untill they errupt all over (Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo,.., Afghanistan, Iraq) and then they sink into blackhole again.

For instance reports about USA and Afghan casualties (a few men) are almost weekly theese days, but they're not present in mainstream media (search Reuters or BBC).

I think this leads to following thinking pattern among uncritical masses (not USA, everywhere):

(evolcing crisis is not reported, most people don't know history in other parts of the globe - valid for all nations)

1) All is going well.

2) OMG those (insert bad guys of the year) are raping/killing/torturing.... (insert good guys of the year)

(crisis escalates, news hungry media blow it all over, often not taking enough time to analyze)

3) We must bomb the bad guys™

4) Bombing - see we're winning

(reports from the front are particulary biased as sides know the value of propaganda)

5) happy faces - we saved (insert the good guys), schools, aid, people returning

6) media blackhole, no reports about ongoing problems -> see the above method works perfectly


(I am not accusing anyone in particular as far as nation is regarded, I'm just pointing out what noncritical masses are like everywhere.)

I'd say BBC and Sky are better (Sky is owned by Murdoch, who also owns FoxNews) in this regard, but still IMO television news reporting has gone south. Same goes for local media, personal, shallow, biased, no broader insight.

IMO TV as far as news are concerned is almost rendered obsolete, except maybe for live broadcasts of major events, but even those can be seen on video through internet.


That said:

- I hope that younger generation will be (and IMO should be - for instance in hi-school we had to gather 3 articles from 3 papers (left, right, central) describing same event and compare reporting and bias) encouraged to develop critical thought and learn to check every news/story with different independant sources and compare arguments.

- I also hope that people will start using internet news sources actively and also check news sources from abroad.

- I hope people will take time, when conflict escalates to google (IMO most of fellow MURCers are critical and informed regarding this matter, I'm just ranting) up history and events leading to the crisis and try to understand both sides before forming opinion

For instance, North Korea would be no problem if TVs and radios wouldn't be pretuned to state TV channels and most people could access internet.

[Dr Mordrid]

The best thing media wise in this war was the use of embedded reporters. Their firsthand reports really put the kabosh to any notions of accuracy in both the network TV and print media reports, especially those published by the NY Times...whose fan base should be dropping like a rock after their dismal performance.

As far as the networks go it was interesting to see CBS and ABC's ratings actually drop during a war (NBC was marginally up) while FOX was up 235% overall and almost 500% in the very important 18-34 demographic.

In fact FOX's cable morning show, Fox & Friends, is now rating higher than CBS's broadcast morning show dispite being available to 25 million fewer homes.

Things...they are a changin'.....

Dr. Mordrid