PDA

View Full Version : CNN Presents: Inside Hezbollah


Volcana
Aug 7th, 2006, 04:49 AM
I didn't get to see the whole program (the baby kept waking up). But considering CNN is a pretty conservative network, and the program was hosted by Tucker Carlson, who calls himself a conservative (and I certainly agree), the program wasn't totally biased.

What really struck me though, was the Lebanese people. It happens that most of my close friends are Jewish. (That's pretty muvh accidental. I met them all in college.) Not surprisingly, some of them have relatives who are Orthodox. And they look exactly like the Lebanese women in the program. The colors of the clothing were different, but the style was the same. The accent on the English slightly different, but I'm talking SLIGHTLY.

The people on the TV detailing all the good thing Hezbollah has done for them, could have been the same people I've sat down to seder with, who support Israel passionately.

They say it's always worst when family fights.

tennisbum79
Aug 7th, 2006, 11:42 AM
I thought Tucker left CNN (or was forced out) and is now hosting his own show on MSNBC.
On the war in Iraq, Tucker always claims " I personally do not support this war. I thought it was a mistake from the beginning... ".
Then he goes on to make arguments that supports the war.

Lord Nelson
Aug 7th, 2006, 11:56 AM
I didn't get to see the whole program (the baby kept waking up). But considering CNN is a pretty conservative network, and the program was hosted by Tucker Carlson, who calls himself a conservative (and I certainly agree), the program wasn't totally biased.

What really struck me though, was the Lebanese people. It happens that most of my close friends are Jewish. (That's pretty muvh accidental. I met them all in college.) Not surprisingly, some of them have relatives who are Orthodox. And they look exactly like the Lebanese women in the program. The colors of the clothing were different, but the style was the same. The accent on the English slightly different, but I'm talking SLIGHTLY.

The people on the TV detailing all the good thing Hezbollah has done for them, could have been the same people I've sat down to seder with, who support Israel passionately.

They say it's always worst when family fights.
Is it a crime for a network to be conservative? In any case since you seem to watch the channel you must also have positive views about it. What news channel or program do you consider to be 'really' good then? Al Jazeera?

SelesFan70
Aug 7th, 2006, 03:16 PM
But considering CNN is a pretty conservative network

*death*

:haha:

Sam L
Aug 7th, 2006, 04:02 PM
I thought CNN was liberal. If CNN is conservative then what is NOT CONSERVATIVE, Volcana?

And what about the good things that Hezbollah has done for some people, that doesn't mean they're not evil?

tennisbum79
Aug 7th, 2006, 06:35 PM
CNN is not conservative. It is main stream when it comes to national news anyway. On international news, all networks, wo exception, always takes the side of the government.

There is only one idealogical TV network, that is FOXNEWS Channel. And they are not shy about it. All their journalists, even the meteorologists( Global warming debate) understand this, and it come accross as such. From politics to social issues. Even on Mel Gibson anti-semtic remarks, FOXNEWS found a way to defend him bu muddying the water with he was drunk, his publicist is Jewish,
They usually take side based on the person past credentials in conservative politics. Gibson having builld good credit with Passion of the Christ and sdevotion to chuch, FNC is not sparing any effrot to defend him

samsung101
Aug 7th, 2006, 06:49 PM
CNN is a conservative network?

What?

As compared to what, the Russian news
service?


CNN is not conservative.

The only moderately conservative news outlet,
and that's because it actually gives acknowledged
liberal and conservative reporters and commentators
an even shot, is Fox.

Other than that, our American media is generally,
and statistically, liberal, and always has been.


Tucker Carlson is about it isn't he, for a
modest attempt at giving another point of
view on CNN.

CNN is liberal, and has been since the days
of Ted Turner. His stamp is on the network
forever.

Although, I think MSNBC has overtaken CNN as
over the top nutty liberal on most things.


This the same CNN that admitted only after Saddam
was ousted that it held back on truthful stories
inside Iraq, because it wanted to keep its
unique access to Saddam in Iraq. In other words,
they did not report the torture, abuse, and problems
w/i Iraq before the War, only what Saddam allowed
it to - for years. Peter Arnett had special treatment
because of it, w/i Iraq.


Inside Hezbollah, why not just not Al Jazeera on the
tv screen? Go like Reuters and doctor up photos -
as was proven this weekend- to make an Israeli
attack look worse. Or report 50 dead in a recent
attack inside Lebanon...only to be corrected, oh wait,
that's really only 1 killed in the attack. Just like
Qana, staged parts, and partial truth only. All to
make Israel, defending itself against Hezbollah
cowardly terrorists hiding amidst the civilians on
purpose, look like the wrongdoers.

Apoleb
Aug 7th, 2006, 06:52 PM
CNN is a conservative network?

What?

As compared to what, the Russian news
service?


CNN is not conservative.

The only moderately conservative news outlet,
and that's because it actually gives acknowledged
liberal and conservative reporters and commentators
an even shot, is Fox.

Other than that, our American media is generally,
and statistically, liberal, and always has been.


Tucker Carlson is about it isn't he, for a
modest attempt at giving another point of
view on CNN.

CNN is liberal, and has been since the days
of Ted Turner. His stamp is on the network
forever.

Although, I think MSNBC has overtaken CNN as
over the top nutty liberal on most things.


This the same CNN that admitted only after Saddam
was ousted that it held back on truthful stories
inside Iraq, because it wanted to keep its
unique access to Saddam in Iraq. In other words,
they did not report the torture, abuse, and problems
w/i Iraq before the War, only what Saddam allowed
it to - for years. Peter Arnett had special treatment
because of it, w/i Iraq.


Inside Hezbollah, why not just not Al Jazeera on the
tv screen? Go like Reuters and doctor up photos -
as was proven this weekend- to make an Israeli
attack look worse. Or report 50 dead in a recent
attack inside Lebanon...only to be corrected, oh wait,
that's really only 1 killed in the attack. Just like
Qana, staged parts, and partial truth only. All to
make Israel, defending itself against Hezbollah
cowardly terrorists hiding amidst the civilians on
purpose, look like the wrongdoers.

Don't you get bored from repeating the same shit over and over? For the average American viewer CNN might not be exactly right wing, but to label it as anything close to pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel or whatever is laughable.

I think such program is essential. I hate Hezbollah and their ideology, and they are the last thing Lebanon needs, but seriously, people in the West tend be extremely ignorant about anything in the area, and just brandish the whole thing as "terrorists", "evil".. bla bla bla.

tennisbum79
Aug 7th, 2006, 06:55 PM
Don't you get bored from repeating the same shit over and over?

I think such program is essential. I hate Hezbollah and their ideology, and they are the last thing Lebanon needs, but seriously, people in the West tend be extremely ignorant about anything in the area, and just brandish the whole thing as "terrorists", "evil".. bla bla bla.
I have to agree with you on this one.

Volcana
Aug 7th, 2006, 08:00 PM
The whole issue of whether or not CNN is a conservative entity is beside the point of the thread, :confused: but oh well ...

I get my news from all over the world. That's used to be one of the advantages of living near New York City, but with the internet, anybody who's willing to make the effort can.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/) is a conservative news outlet. They aren't outright liars like Fox, but middle of the road? Not hardly. Read the news from the rest of the world's viewpoint sometime.

The key to determining where the politics of a given source lies mostly in what they choose to report, or not report. Take the Iraq invasion. Liberal sources hammer away at civilian casualty figures. Conservative ones often brushed them off with 'civilians die during war. It happens'.

Of course, I'm not implying CNN is the Washington Times (http://www.washtimes.com/). But conservative is very fair. I'll give you an example. You may know that a number of the news media got together and did the complete Florida recount of the 2000 presidential election. You may also recall that the headlines they all reported saif that Bush won the recount. Go Google "2000" "election" "recount" "Gore wins", and read a few links. GORE won the total recount. Bush only wins if you only count 'undervotes', dimpled chads and the like. 'overvotes' were cases where someone voted for Gore twice, punching the hole next to his name, and writing his name in as well. (People said they did that because the ballot was confusing, and they wanted to make things clear.) Of you count the overvotes, Gore wins Florida handily.

I don't bring this up to re-argue the Florida election, but to make a point about news coverage. A 'liberal' media doesn't report that Bush would have won a total recount when they know Gore would have. Were they actually lying? No. Gore himself sued for a recount based only on undervotes.

Getting back to general commentary, AirAmerica (http://www.airamerica.com), which fancies itself a liberal netrwork, isn't even all that liberal, measured against a global context, or simply by the standards that prevailed up to 1980. MotherJones (http://www.motherjones.com/) covers things in better depth. The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/)has done brilliant work on Iraq. On the conservative side, Wall St Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/us) reporting than I do in FoxNews. And I've had the same challenge standing for almost four years about http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage (http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage). Post me an article where they are deliberately lying about the facts. do the print stuff the US gov't does like? Sure. But half the gov't in the Mid East have banned them at one time or another. Al-Jazeera get their facts straight. You'll actually find that on the facts they don't differ greatly from the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/). (Of course, between those two, one man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'commando'. I'm talking about facts, not spin.)

I find the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5241636.stm) rather pro-Western in it's MidEast coverage, but factual. Le Monde Diplomatique (http://mondediplo.com/) has perspectives rarely touched by other media outlets.

And then there are the blogs. But except for one mention, I'll avoid that here. Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/) is pretty reliable.

Lastly, most of you are probably unaware that Hezbollah has their own news service, Al-Manar (http://www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/News.aspx?language=en). If you read their covergae of the war in Lebanon, and read the Jerusalem Post coverage (or the New York Post coverage), it would make more sense to you why I find Al-Jazeera to be moderate source.

Most people want to hear the news in a way that re-inforces what they already believe. This is how FoxNews is 'moderate' to some people, while all other news sources are 'liberal'. Rational use of the language alone should prohibit such a conclusion. If everyone is to one side of you, you aren't in the middle.

If you don't agree with me about CNN, that's fine. However, I've been watching them since their inception, and their coverage doesn't meet the standards of anything I'd ever consider 'leftist', or even 'middle-of-the-road'. It's been mentioned here before that Richard Nixon would have been considered a flaming liberal by the standards of most of today's US media. But in his time, they called him a hardcore conservative.

Volcana
Aug 7th, 2006, 08:08 PM
Is it a crime for a network to be conservative?Not at all.
In any case since you seem to watch the channel you must also have positive views about it.The facts they DO report are actually facts. It's in what they leave out, or include, and the weight they give each, that their biases come in.
What news channel or program do you consider to be 'really' good then? Al Jazeera?Al Jazeera's better than CNN on Middle East coverage. The US news media refuses to show us a lot of the realities of the current wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. But CNN has a lot of stuff about the USA that never makes it into Al-Jazeera. And of course, compared to FoxNews, Al-Jazeera is an encyclopedia while FoxNews is a comic book for illiterates.

tennisbum79
Aug 7th, 2006, 08:35 PM
The whole issue of whether or not CNN is a conservative entity is beside the point of the thread, :confused: but oh well ...

I get my news from all over the world. That's used to be one of the advantages of living near New York City, but with the internet, anybody who's willing to make the effort can.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/) is a conservative news outlet. They aren't outright liars like Fox, but middle of the road? Not hardly. Read the news from the rest of the world's viewpoint sometime.

The key to determining where the politics of a given source lies mostly in what they choose to report, or not report. Take the Iraq invasion. Liberal sources hammer away at civilian casualty figures. Conservative ones often brushed them off with 'civilians die during war. It happens'.

Of course, I'm not implying CNN is the Washington Times (http://www.washtimes.com/). But conservative is very fair. I'll give you an example. You may know that a number of the news media got together and did the complete Florida recount of the 2000 presidential election. You may also recall that the headlines they all reported saif that Bush won the recount. Go Google "2000" "election" "recount" "Gore wins", and read a few links. GORE won the total recount. Bush only wins if you only count 'undervotes', dimpled chads and the like. 'overvotes' were cases where someone voted for Gore twice, punching the hole next to his name, and writing his name in as well. (People said they did that because the ballot was confusing, and they wanted to make things clear.) Of you count the overvotes, Gore wins Florida handily.

I don't bring this up to re-argue the Florida election, but to make a point about news coverage. A 'liberal' media doesn't report that Bush would have won a total recount when they know Gore would have. Were they actually lying? No. Gore himself sued for a recount based only on undervotes.

Getting back to general commentary, AirAmerica (http://www.airamerica.com/), which fancies itself a liberal netrwork, isn't even all that liberal, measured against a global context, or simply by the standards that prevailed up to 1980. MotherJones (http://www.motherjones.com/)covers things in better depth. The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/)has done brilliant work on Iraq. On the conservative side, Wall St Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/us) reporting than I do in FoxNews. And I've had the same challenge standing for almost four years about http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage (http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage). Post me an article where they are deliberately lying about the facts. do the print stuff the US gov't does like? Sure. But half the gov't in the Mid East have banned them at one time or another. Al-Jazeera get their facts straight. You'll actually find that on the facts they don't differ greatly from the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/). (Of course, between those two, one man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'commando'. I'm talking about facts, not spin.)

I find the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5241636.stm) rather pro-Western in it's MidEast coverage, but factual. Le Monde Diplomatique (http://mondediplo.com/) has perspectives rarely touched by other media outlets.

And then there are the blogs. But except for one mention, I'll avoid that here. Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/) is pretty reliable.

Lastly, most of you are probably unaware that Hezbollah has their own news service, Al-Manar (http://www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/News.aspx?language=en). If you read their covergae of the war in Lebanon, and read the Jerusalem Post coverage (or the New York Post coverage), it would make more sense to you why I find Al-Jazeera to be moderate source.

Most people want to hear the news in a way that re-inforces what they already believe. This is how FoxNews is 'moderate' to some people, while all other news sources are 'liberal'. Rational use of the language alone should prohibit such a conclusion. If everyone is to one side of you, you aren't in the middle.

If you don't agree with me about CNN, that's fine. However, I've been watching them since their inception, and their coverage doesn't meet the standards of anything I'd ever consider 'leftist', or even 'middle-of-the-road'. It's been mentioned here before that Richard Nixon would have been considered a flaming liberal by the standards of most of today's US media. But in his time, they called him a hardcore conservative.

Brilliant post. Although I still feel that CNN is not conservative.
I do think there is a climate of enforced patrostism or self imopsed sense of manufactured patriotism in all newsrooms. Mother Jones (and the Nation )magazine being an exception.
As for Air America, they seem to have more comedy than serious discussions.

One thing about conservatives, they could be talking thrash, but they are so convinced that what they are saying is true that it does not take much for their base, which is spoon fed by the conservatives media, to believe.
I am not advocating that liberals turned into zealots. with little regard for the facts and context. What I am saying is that the liberal voice wihing to convince other poeple need to get some backbones and be more convincing to the the audience they are talking to. For liberal audiences, by their very nature (always questioning authority) is very skeptical. And if one does seems convinicing or does not have all the facts, liberal will not buy their arguments.

Conservative treat their audiences as little children doing things for.
They use terms likes looking out for you, breaking down and simplifying it for you. Veyr patronizing expressions. You wuld think the audiences are not capable of thinling for themselves

Sam L
Aug 8th, 2006, 12:45 AM
The whole issue of whether or not CNN is a conservative entity is beside the point of the thread, :confused: but oh well ...

I get my news from all over the world. That's used to be one of the advantages of living near New York City, but with the internet, anybody who's willing to make the effort can.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/) is a conservative news outlet. They aren't outright liars like Fox, but middle of the road? Not hardly. Read the news from the rest of the world's viewpoint sometime.

The key to determining where the politics of a given source lies mostly in what they choose to report, or not report. Take the Iraq invasion. Liberal sources hammer away at civilian casualty figures. Conservative ones often brushed them off with 'civilians die during war. It happens'.

Of course, I'm not implying CNN is the Washington Times (http://www.washtimes.com/). But conservative is very fair. I'll give you an example. You may know that a number of the news media got together and did the complete Florida recount of the 2000 presidential election. You may also recall that the headlines they all reported saif that Bush won the recount. Go Google "2000" "election" "recount" "Gore wins", and read a few links. GORE won the total recount. Bush only wins if you only count 'undervotes', dimpled chads and the like. 'overvotes' were cases where someone voted for Gore twice, punching the hole next to his name, and writing his name in as well. (People said they did that because the ballot was confusing, and they wanted to make things clear.) Of you count the overvotes, Gore wins Florida handily.

I don't bring this up to re-argue the Florida election, but to make a point about news coverage. A 'liberal' media doesn't report that Bush would have won a total recount when they know Gore would have. Were they actually lying? No. Gore himself sued for a recount based only on undervotes.

Getting back to general commentary, AirAmerica (http://www.airamerica.com), which fancies itself a liberal netrwork, isn't even all that liberal, measured against a global context, or simply by the standards that prevailed up to 1980. MotherJones (http://www.motherjones.com/) covers things in better depth. The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/)has done brilliant work on Iraq. On the conservative side, Wall St Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/us) reporting than I do in FoxNews. And I've had the same challenge standing for almost four years about http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage (http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage). Post me an article where they are deliberately lying about the facts. do the print stuff the US gov't does like? Sure. But half the gov't in the Mid East have banned them at one time or another. Al-Jazeera get their facts straight. You'll actually find that on the facts they don't differ greatly from the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/). (Of course, between those two, one man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'commando'. I'm talking about facts, not spin.)

I find the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5241636.stm) rather pro-Western in it's MidEast coverage, but factual. Le Monde Diplomatique (http://mondediplo.com/) has perspectives rarely touched by other media outlets.

And then there are the blogs. But except for one mention, I'll avoid that here. Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/) is pretty reliable.

Lastly, most of you are probably unaware that Hezbollah has their own news service, Al-Manar (http://www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/News.aspx?language=en). If you read their covergae of the war in Lebanon, and read the Jerusalem Post coverage (or the New York Post coverage), it would make more sense to you why I find Al-Jazeera to be moderate source.

Most people want to hear the news in a way that re-inforces what they already believe. This is how FoxNews is 'moderate' to some people, while all other news sources are 'liberal'. Rational use of the language alone should prohibit such a conclusion. If everyone is to one side of you, you aren't in the middle.

If you don't agree with me about CNN, that's fine. However, I've been watching them since their inception, and their coverage doesn't meet the standards of anything I'd ever consider 'leftist', or even 'middle-of-the-road'. It's been mentioned here before that Richard Nixon would have been considered a flaming liberal by the standards of most of today's US media. But in his time, they called him a hardcore conservative.

So your idea of a reliable news source is Al Jezeera? LOL! Volcana just go live in the middle east and celebrate when there's a terrorist attack on the US because that's how you're acting like.

Crazy Canuck
Aug 8th, 2006, 01:21 AM
Don't you get bored from repeating the same shit over and over?

You really could pose that question to anybody on the board, yourself included.

In fact, why don't you make a poll and ask everybody this question? I'd really like to know :)

RVD
Aug 8th, 2006, 01:46 AM
The whole issue of whether or not CNN is a conservative entity is beside the point of the thread, :confused: but oh well ...

I get my news from all over the world. That's used to be one of the advantages of living near New York City, but with the internet, anybody who's willing to make the effort can.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/) is a conservative news outlet. They aren't outright liars like Fox, but middle of the road? Not hardly. Read the news from the rest of the world's viewpoint sometime.

The key to determining where the politics of a given source lies mostly in what they choose to report, or not report. Take the Iraq invasion. Liberal sources hammer away at civilian casualty figures. Conservative ones often brushed them off with 'civilians die during war. It happens'.

Of course, I'm not implying CNN is the Washington Times (http://www.washtimes.com/). But conservative is very fair. I'll give you an example. You may know that a number of the news media got together and did the complete Florida recount of the 2000 presidential election. You may also recall that the headlines they all reported saif that Bush won the recount. Go Google "2000" "election" "recount" "Gore wins", and read a few links. GORE won the total recount. Bush only wins if you only count 'undervotes', dimpled chads and the like. 'overvotes' were cases where someone voted for Gore twice, punching the hole next to his name, and writing his name in as well. (People said they did that because the ballot was confusing, and they wanted to make things clear.) Of you count the overvotes, Gore wins Florida handily.

I don't bring this up to re-argue the Florida election, but to make a point about news coverage. A 'liberal' media doesn't report that Bush would have won a total recount when they know Gore would have. Were they actually lying? No. Gore himself sued for a recount based only on undervotes.

Getting back to general commentary, AirAmerica (http://www.airamerica.com), which fancies itself a liberal netrwork, isn't even all that liberal, measured against a global context, or simply by the standards that prevailed up to 1980. MotherJones (http://www.motherjones.com/) covers things in better depth. The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/)has done brilliant work on Iraq. On the conservative side, Wall St Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/us) reporting than I do in FoxNews. And I've had the same challenge standing for almost four years about http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage (http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage). Post me an article where they are deliberately lying about the facts. do the print stuff the US gov't does like? Sure. But half the gov't in the Mid East have banned them at one time or another. Al-Jazeera get their facts straight. You'll actually find that on the facts they don't differ greatly from the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/). (Of course, between those two, one man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'commando'. I'm talking about facts, not spin.)

I find the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5241636.stm) rather pro-Western in it's MidEast coverage, but factual. Le Monde Diplomatique (http://mondediplo.com/) has perspectives rarely touched by other media outlets.

And then there are the blogs. But except for one mention, I'll avoid that here. Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/) is pretty reliable.

Lastly, most of you are probably unaware that Hezbollah has their own news service, Al-Manar (http://www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/News.aspx?language=en). If you read their covergae of the war in Lebanon, and read the Jerusalem Post coverage (or the New York Post coverage), it would make more sense to you why I find Al-Jazeera to be moderate source.

Most people want to hear the news in a way that re-inforces what they already believe. This is how FoxNews is 'moderate' to some people, while all other news sources are 'liberal'. Rational use of the language alone should prohibit such a conclusion. If everyone is to one side of you, you aren't in the middle.

If you don't agree with me about CNN, that's fine. However, I've been watching them since their inception, and their coverage doesn't meet the standards of anything I'd ever consider 'leftist', or even 'middle-of-the-road'. It's been mentioned here before that Richard Nixon would have been considered a flaming liberal by the standards of most of today's US media. But in his time, they called him a hardcore conservative.:haha: I had to laugh because I asked myself the same thing. :haha: but you have to understand that this is WTAWORLD.COM, and direct answers to hard questions is near non-existent. :lol: ;)

Oh, and great post. :yeah:

P.S.
I too view CNN as conservative 'leaning'. The vast majority of the media news channels are. Just do a search on ownership and anyone can see why that is the case. :shrug: But oh well. People are free to believe what they like. :angel:

fufuqifuqishahah
Aug 8th, 2006, 02:12 AM
i watched cnn presents inside hezbollah w/ someone else i think.... like last week

AND

they tried to appear unbiased... but it was obvious to ME that because of the people they interviewed (interviewed a lebanese who supported hezbollah and an israeli who's daughter died from palestinian attack), that it was leaning towards israel