(no subject)

Date: 2004-09-25 08:07 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ororo.livejournal.com
I never thought the network that gave us Walter Cronkite would ever slant their news delivery so obviously in line with those in power.

I hope Edward R. Murrow haunts their dreams.

(no subject)

Date: 2004-09-25 02:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ericthemage.livejournal.com
Oh, it's that damn liberal media Limbaugh keeps harping on.

(One of these days I'll actually see it. Probably around the same time I see the Easter Bunny.)

(no subject)

Date: 2004-09-25 04:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] redaxe.livejournal.com
Once burned, twice shy.

Except that this story's sources have been verified eight ways to Sunday, and it should have been aired already. And then some. Much of it has; the story itself is public knowledge; all CBS would be doing is standing behind it, and ensuring it got a high profile.

But what did you want from the network that so thoroughly messed up its handling of The Reagans?

(no subject)

Date: 2004-09-25 04:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dbcooper.livejournal.com
My comment on the 60 Minutes crew, as sent to CBSNews.com:

A story from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/25/politics/campaign/25cbs.html?ex=1253851200&en=1c69abce890379d5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland) states that your 60 Minutes staff is postponing a negative story about President George W. Bush until after the elections. This is unacceptable. Timeliness is one of the most important elements of news--otherwise it wouldn't be called news. You're already having problems with accuracy--don't make timeliness a problem. Please run the segment and act like a real news organization again.

(no subject)

Date: 2004-09-25 04:19 pm (UTC)
poltr1: (Default)
From: [personal profile] poltr1
I'd have to agree with [livejournal.com profile] redaxe on this one. After the debacle with the forged National Guard service records, I think they've lost their cojones to do another story that puts BushCo in a negative light.

(no subject)

Date: 2004-09-25 08:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] umbran.livejournal.com
Okay, it was pretty clear before that CBS wasnt' particularly afraid of the Administration. They were willing to run a story against Bush before. Why not now?

Well, it would be reasonable to expect that the viewers would question the veracity of the report. The last time they tried to attack Bush, they used false evidence. Why should the viewers expect better of them now? The fact that these sources have been verified will be lost on the majority of the public.

The viewers are unlikely to believe another negative story on Bush, so soon after the National Guard document nonsense, and so near the election. It'd wear down CBS' credibility, and may well lead viewers to believe the exact opposite of what the story says.

End result - they may simply feel that the report won't have constructive results.

(no subject)

Date: 2004-09-27 07:05 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] skull-leader3.livejournal.com
If that's the case, why not share their information with another news organization...perhaps one with more cojones than they have?

(no subject)

Date: 2004-09-27 09:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] unclelumpy.livejournal.com
>"We now believe it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the
>presidential election," the spokeswoman, Kelli Edwards, said in a statement.

Funny, I figured that'd be the PERFECT time to air such a report.

March 2014

S M T W T F S
      1
2 3 456 78
9101112131415
1617 1819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 22nd, 2026 02:00 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios