Friday, September 26, 2008

CNN shows how stupid they are...

On CNN they are talking to a woman who claims because of the debate tonight she decided to support Obama. Only problem? She's been an Obama/Biden supporter and has posted on the Obama website where she has a profile.

It's misleading to have people on air that come with a pre-disposed bias. They never once identified that she was an Obama supporter or involved in the campaign.

Add this to the fact that CNN only posts certain comments on their website?

Hard to deem them as credible anymore. Especially since they just said that this woman was "undecided" prior to tonight. CNN? way to be misleading...

6 comments:

Alex said...

I'm curious, what do you make of Ms. Brown's argument that the McCain campaigns' seclusion of Governor Palin is akin to patriarchy because it is predicated upon baseless assumptions about gender? Should the McCain campaign "throw off the shackles" and allow her to become a VP candidate?

I think this is accurate. However, it doesn't appear so because the fiction created by the McCain campaign regarding the media's - in general - "unfair" attacks on Palin, of which you have propagated, has been effective and therefore she doesn't need to answer questions or answer questions about why she is incapable of accurately and intelligently answering the few questions she has been asked. However, this defense - "She is being attacked" - is also predicated on baseless assumptions about gender: Women need to be protected from these "assaults," where McCain, for example, does not.

Scott G said...

Of teh three major cable networks, we have the ultra-conservative channel, the "in love with Obama" channel, and CNN just trying to get anyone to watch.

Lisa Renee said...

I agree Scott, I guess if you watch all three then maybe, if you can stomach watching all three, we'd have a clue as to what's going on.

Alex, that really doesn't have anything to do with what CNN did here. Many believe the media attacks were unfair and that there has been a huge difference in how far the media will selectively go in regards to one candidate as opposed to another. It's not just Palin, if you will remember, it was Clinton and it could equally be said that candidates like Edwards were not reported on in any type of a fair and equitable system. One could further take this to the third parties, the media rarely covers them either.

I don't think this is "fiction" created by the McCain campaign since it seems pretty clear this has happened and is happening.

Alex said...

I understand the post may be disconnected from my question. However, as I don't believe you have spoken about the inherent sexism of the McCain campaign - disguised so effectively by creating the myth that "Palin cannot get a fair shake" - I'm curious.

Lisa Renee said...

Alex, you believe it's all fabricated, I don't. Has the McCain campaign used the bias of the media as previously evidenced to their advantage? Of course. Has it been to the level as suggested during the whole lipstick on a pig thing, in which I did clearly state I disagreed with the way that was presented as well as provided the video so people would see Obama was not referring to Palin, yes some of it has been over blown.

It's politics, both sides spin, but even when you remove the spin, the fact remains that the media has been sexist as well as biased as has been pointed out.

Alex said...

I never said it was "all fabricated." I did, however, say that when viewed holistically, this discourse has been an effective fiction. My question is attempting to get at this point.

Only within such a context, where the media in its entirety is viewed as "sexist" or "unfair," a view derived from fallacious reasoning where individual examples are applied to the whole, can Palin's seclusion by the McCain campaign be justified. Therefore, my argument is meant to illuminate this point.

You shouldn't conclude from this that the media isn't biased in my opinion; however, extrapolating to the whole, which is what the McCain campaign has done, with the support of individuals such as yourself, this fiction they've created is actually damaging to both the democratic process and the women's rights movement. You arguments suggest (oftentimes they are explicit in doing so) generalities where there are none to be validly claimed.

Indeed, it's within this context that Palin's last interview was viewed as "gotcha journalism," when, in fact, it clearly was not. If any other candidate were sitting in Palin's place, this conversation about "unfairness" would not be considered even remotely valid. However, within the context that McCain and individuals like you have created - where every word is parsed or viewed negatively for X but not for Y, or Z - then this conversation can continue to take on a life of its own.