CNN has proven by its continual coverage of the Anna Nicole Smith story that it has absolutely NO journalistic integrity and should no longer be considered a "news" organization. They hire "reporters" and "correspondents" simply to stir up controversy with no regard for any facts. They are an embarrassment.
Ermm .. I got news for you. Mainstream media has been nothing but stirred up controversy and ill regard for facts, from day one. Its a sick society that relies on a single source for all its self-awareness ..
There is no 'anti Apple bias' in the BBC. That is just plumb delusional and ridiculous. Apple is not a big platform in the UK - as it is also not such a big platform in the rest of the world outside America - so the fact that it doesn't get that much airtime for it's computing products is reflected in it's market share. It does however give major airtime to all Apple's other products - such as the iPod, the iPhone and all the other iStuff that Apple produce - because again, proportionally these do enjoy a higher market share and therefore greater market visibility.If you are referring to the recent spat about the BBC not supporting Apple platforms in their new iPTV service - that again was a decision motivated by market share. The BBC has a public duty laid down in law to provide the greatest level of access to the greatest number of people possible, in the most cost effective way possible too. (They are genuinely not allowed to just willfully waste money). As much as it might suck, the conclusion that they came to was that the best way to do this was to serve Microsoft only platforms - since 97% of the people who watch the BBC online, commonly use Microsoft only products to do so.However even this decision was later reversed to ensure that everyone was able to gain access 'regardless of platform'. So your concerns and accusations in this regard are again entirely unfounded.You see you forget that you are a geek (well kind of - although I am not sure if Apple users really qualifiy as a geeks) and that on the whole, no one really cares at all about what you think. The BBC certainly have better things to think about - and are unlikely in the extreme to have issued some kind of nationwide edict to it's reporters to spread 'negative' Apple propaganda. If this is truly what you believe, I suggest you step outside and breath some fresh air for a while - because it has clearly been some time since you have last done so.
this is documentary evidence of CNN doing something sleazy...so, how is it biased simply because that evidence is posted on thinkprogress? Are you claiming that they've omitted context? omitted content? what? what's your claim exactly?
If you had to put on 24 hours of news a day for 365 days a year, you are bound to do some dumb things from time to time, and while I'm not a huge CNN fan, I like Fox better, I do watch both so I get the whole story from both sides and 2 angles. Now as for digg, you could take ANY news station and post about a screw up and you'd get the same dumb comments as seen above..
prysorraFeb 15, 2007
Olbermann? Wrong. He's a *real* news anchor. His bias is towards keeping his job.The other two....*claps*.
zoshchenkoFeb 15, 2007
CNN has proven by its continual coverage of the Anna Nicole Smith story that it has absolutely NO journalistic integrity and should no longer be considered a "news" organization. They hire "reporters" and "correspondents" simply to stir up controversy with no regard for any facts. They are an embarrassment.
roprotFeb 15, 2007
Ermm .. I got news for you. Mainstream media has been nothing but stirred up controversy and ill regard for facts, from day one. Its a sick society that relies on a single source for all its self-awareness ..
candidatezeroFeb 15, 2007
For real. CNN is probably just after ratings, though. Fox is too, but also has a political agenda as set by Murdoch. In the Aussie's own words: <a class="user" href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/04/rupert-murdoch-admits-manipulating-the-mediasurprisesurprise/">http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/04/rupert-murdoch-admits-manipulating-the-mediasurprisesurprise/</a>
raid517Feb 15, 2007
There is no 'anti Apple bias' in the BBC. That is just plumb delusional and ridiculous. Apple is not a big platform in the UK - as it is also not such a big platform in the rest of the world outside America - so the fact that it doesn't get that much airtime for it's computing products is reflected in it's market share. It does however give major airtime to all Apple's other products - such as the iPod, the iPhone and all the other iStuff that Apple produce - because again, proportionally these do enjoy a higher market share and therefore greater market visibility.If you are referring to the recent spat about the BBC not supporting Apple platforms in their new iPTV service - that again was a decision motivated by market share. The BBC has a public duty laid down in law to provide the greatest level of access to the greatest number of people possible, in the most cost effective way possible too. (They are genuinely not allowed to just willfully waste money). As much as it might suck, the conclusion that they came to was that the best way to do this was to serve Microsoft only platforms - since 97% of the people who watch the BBC online, commonly use Microsoft only products to do so.However even this decision was later reversed to ensure that everyone was able to gain access 'regardless of platform'. So your concerns and accusations in this regard are again entirely unfounded.You see you forget that you are a geek (well kind of - although I am not sure if Apple users really qualifiy as a geeks) and that on the whole, no one really cares at all about what you think. The BBC certainly have better things to think about - and are unlikely in the extreme to have issued some kind of nationwide edict to it's reporters to spread 'negative' Apple propaganda. If this is truly what you believe, I suggest you step outside and breath some fresh air for a while - because it has clearly been some time since you have last done so.
wendelgee2Feb 15, 2007
this is documentary evidence of CNN doing something sleazy...so, how is it biased simply because that evidence is posted on thinkprogress? Are you claiming that they've omitted context? omitted content? what? what's your claim exactly?
barbarinoFeb 15, 2007
If you had to put on 24 hours of news a day for 365 days a year, you are bound to do some dumb things from time to time, and while I'm not a huge CNN fan, I like Fox better, I do watch both so I get the whole story from both sides and 2 angles. Now as for digg, you could take ANY news station and post about a screw up and you'd get the same dumb comments as seen above..
pfhreakFeb 15, 2007
On a credibility scale of 1--100, CNN is 10 and FOX is 0. I guess you're right that it's much more credible, but that's not saying much.