CNN really sucks
Spending nearly a week in a small town in Arkansas with my parents gave me a greater appreaciation for just how bad CNN is. I rarely atch it anymore, but it was the only news station on the local cable. Even Wolf Blitzer was awful.
Blitzer kept replaying Rep. Murtha's flawed premise that US troops had become the main target for terrorist in Iraq. This is a demonstrably false premise to anyone who follows attacks in Iraq. The primary targets of the enemy are noncombatants who don't shoot back. Because US forces are so deadly, th enemy rarely attacks them directly. In the last year there have been only a couple of memorable attacks by enemy forces on defended positions, all of which resulted in significant defeats for the enemy. No one at CNN ever raised this point.
In another segment Blitzer is questioning two guys on the torture legislation. Both guys think we should pass a law against torture becuase it would be good propaganda. But when asked about the situation where a captured terrorist had info on a nuke attack in a US city, they both agreed that we should use whatever means were necessary to get the information. Blitzer then ended the interview without asking an obvious question. Would the people who extracted the info from the terrorist be subject to prosecution or impeachment? Is the legislation an impeachment trap?
That after all is what the dispute is all about. Otherwise the administration would favor a piece of legislative propaganda too.
My next complaint is not substantive, but did Fox hire all of CNN attractive newsbabes? Or is it CNN's latest strategy to hire unattractive women, to keep the competition from hiring them? The talent as a whole at CNN seems well below the Fox standard.
Spending nearly a week in a small town in Arkansas with my parents gave me a greater appreaciation for just how bad CNN is. I rarely atch it anymore, but it was the only news station on the local cable. Even Wolf Blitzer was awful.
Blitzer kept replaying Rep. Murtha's flawed premise that US troops had become the main target for terrorist in Iraq. This is a demonstrably false premise to anyone who follows attacks in Iraq. The primary targets of the enemy are noncombatants who don't shoot back. Because US forces are so deadly, th enemy rarely attacks them directly. In the last year there have been only a couple of memorable attacks by enemy forces on defended positions, all of which resulted in significant defeats for the enemy. No one at CNN ever raised this point.
In another segment Blitzer is questioning two guys on the torture legislation. Both guys think we should pass a law against torture becuase it would be good propaganda. But when asked about the situation where a captured terrorist had info on a nuke attack in a US city, they both agreed that we should use whatever means were necessary to get the information. Blitzer then ended the interview without asking an obvious question. Would the people who extracted the info from the terrorist be subject to prosecution or impeachment? Is the legislation an impeachment trap?
That after all is what the dispute is all about. Otherwise the administration would favor a piece of legislative propaganda too.
My next complaint is not substantive, but did Fox hire all of CNN attractive newsbabes? Or is it CNN's latest strategy to hire unattractive women, to keep the competition from hiring them? The talent as a whole at CNN seems well below the Fox standard.
Comments
Post a Comment