CNN producer ask a reporter to "act angry"
 

CBS's recently launched Public Eye blog, saying it wasn't "looking to beat up on a competitor" so early in its life, has identified Los Angeles Times editorial writer Jon Healey as the person who was asked to "get angry" by a CNN producer when he appeared on Paula Zahn Now on Sept. 2. The incident had initially been described by the Times's editorial and opinion editor Michael Kinsley, who wrote: "The TV news networks, which only a few months ago were piously suppressing emotional fireworks by their pundits, are now piously encouraging their news anchors to break out of the emotional straitjackets and express outrage. A Los Angeles Times colleague of mine, appearing on CNN last week to talk about Katrina, was told by a producer to 'get angry.'" Interviewed by Public Eye, Healey said that he received a phone call from the producer of Paula Zahn Now an hour before his appearance, telling him, "I know this is going to sound tacky, but when you're on the show, could you be angry?" Healey told the CBS blog, "I'm a news guy ... I'm not an actor. If they ask me a question, I'll answer it." CNN later denied that anyone asked Healey to get angry. IMDB

Liberals manipulate public perception?.....nahhhhhhhh...I am sure it was an isolated incident in an otherwise hallowed institution.

Media, not liberals, trying to get ratings.

They are not mutually exclusive...They, according to observer after observer, are more often than not the very same animal.

Cam, not sure how it is in Kiwi land but here in America, the media is by far leaning towards the liberal side. Its not 50/50 by a long shot.

As well its not difficult to see that in many cases they are putting their on political views on things.

JoeA

You guys need to get a Fox News media kit.

Guys - I don't dispute that journalists are predominantly liberal. Some but not all mainstream news outlets are arguably liberal biased, just as some are conservative biased (we do have a more even split here).

It is hard for your media - on an international basis they aren't "liberal". They are in the centre. Should they be right of that to avoid bias in the US? Maybe so - you guys might be right.

But the main point I want to make is that a lot of the time the sins that you guys (and others) blame on the media being "liberal" should more correctly be blamed on the media being sluts to ratings and making money. In this instance I believe they are whoring themselves to whatever works in the public eye.

The proof that the the mainstream media in the US and elsewhere is not "just after ratings" can be found in the popularity of FOX news, which kicks CNN and MSNBC's asses here in the US. FOX is successful because they offer conservative viewpoints that the rest of the MSM don't. If CNN et al. were interested in "ratings" rather than their liberal agenda, they'd follow FOX's lead and put on some conservatives for balance, but they don't.

What difference does this make even if true?

When a Conservative is covered in our media they shade him in a bad light, a liberal...good light. As I'm sure we can agree this huge and effective on the subliminal psyche of the average disinterested viewer. Whether or not the reporter/interviewer/commentator is just left of center or just left of Mao doesn't matter as the effect is the same.

I'm an observer, and in many cases, you're correct. But there are moderate to right wing publications and broadcasts out there as well - just not mainstream. It is also a matter (to other observers) if those publications are broadcasts are "right enough." Fox? I never have found Fox all that "right." More moderate than anything - and head strong about a point of view.

It's all a matter of who owns who, really.

ABC is owned by Disney, and in that, I have noticed less "left" news on their L.A. affiliate than on, say, GE-owned NBC.

Disney also makes up for their political stance in other ways, like in movies, though sometimes they slip up.

I think it was Disney-owned Miramax who put out the movie "Priest," which was one of the most politically damning and embarrassing properties the parent studio has ever had its name attached to, even indirectly.

Mul - you should come on down to the studio one day when we have some original Disney cartoon features from the 30s and 40s. You would not believe what those animators subliminally put in the animation. "Fantasia" is chock full of strange political stuff, IIRC.

Even Disneyland can be looked at politically? Did you know at one time it was against Disneyland regulations for the employees to have mustaches? Even if you were dressed up as Mickey, Donald or Goofy, you could not have facial hair or long hair for that matter.

Yes, you'd think they would, but that'd only be in the case if FOX had a great sitcom and CNN was looking for a similar formula for similar ratings.

It'd also be true if CNN at all considered who won the last election and realized that for the next four years, the U.S. will be a moderate to conservative country - at least if the election results have anything to state about the political atmosphere of the U.S.

The problem with the news media is their vitriol. Turner hates conservatives, and born-agains. He hates all things religious, actually. He also hates ex-wife Jane Fonda - which is the only position on which he and conservatives agree. ;) And, as a meglamaniac with a few billion dollars at his exposure, CNN was firstly set up as a cable alternative to staid "conservative" news. The 24-hour news network stuff came along a little bit later.

Now, even with Turner gone from CNN, Turner still holds legacy. His deputies - editors, managing editors, reporters and such, were carefully chosen by him. Now unless the new head of CNN has fired them all, many of those people are still there, having a hand in news policy.

Prime example of CNN's bias - Katrina and the blame game. Hell, I bought into it, too - just as Lendaddy says others have.

But then you start fact checking and patiently waiting for more information to evolve, and before you know it, what one news source reports is truly not the entire "true" story...

Ithink it has more to do with the personalities/reporters. The Today Show is an excellent example, when a lib is on Katie Couric can hardly keep from orgasm in the the praise fest. When a conservative is on the face goes stern and she usesphrases like "You don't really believe that blah blah blah is a cause of blah blah blah". Or "What do you tell the families of those affected by your blah blah blah".

Your average haus frau getting little Jimmy ready for school comes away with a negative feeling toward one and a positive feeling toward the other even though she probably couldn't tell you what they were talking about. This is the problem in my opinion.

lenndaddy- Exactly!

Why go thru the hassle of telling a reporter to 'act angry' when it's much easier to just hire production crew and make up whatever news skit you want, then feed it to the networks who are none the wiser? Hey, it works for the Bush administration, why couldn't it work for the Dems?

Ditto! No one should think the new slant is not true...

And talk to any reporter or real merit, aside from these "actors" and they're appalled by not the left or right, but by the pathetic state of journalism in general...

1. Does the haus frau vote?

2. Is she hot?

3. When does hubby get home?

Problem is Thom, in Bush's case (or any Republican for that matter) he is swimming upstream against a notoriously hostile press...Stay with me here...the converse is true. Get this buddy, when you have the press in your back-pocket you get (I know it is hard to comprehend) better coverage and quite often (especially in Clinton's case) turning a blind eye to your possibly politically damaging behavior.

Do you remember Juanita Broaddrick?...You see she would have nailed Clinton's coffin during impeachment, but friends at NBC decided to shelf her interview with Lisa Myers until (get this) after impeachment...Now that is what I call a collaborative effort.

Bill Clinton's ex-prostitute George Steponallofus is another prime example of network news allegiance, with his plum job acting as a "journalist" for ABC.

1. Likely yes, fraus have little else to do

2. Not usually, perhaps interesting or attractive, but hot and frau are generally not used together:)

3. When "The Man" tells him he can leave

By Job - I think the man has got it!

Do you mean - when Hillary was ranting about the "vast Right Wing Conspiracy" - and Matt was nodding in the affirmative - do you think he was leading public opinion as well???:eek:

Media in ALL forms has this subtle (sometimes not so) method of painting conservative/capitaist people and ideas in a bad light. Heck, go all the way back to cartoons if you want to, the villian is ALWAYS a business man. Move on to tv and movies...again the villian is almost always a business man. This crap adds up on a non-critical mind.



No, I'm not claiming a planned conspiracy. I think it just so happens that artsy-fartsies trend toward these professions and artsy-fartsies trend liberal.