CNN Idiocracy

B

Bat Guano

Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2004
Messages
3,259
Reaction score
2,528
Location
Wyoming
Anyone see the incoherent story on CNN concerning the new policy allowing our troops in Afghanistan to carry loaded weapons on base? The writer(s) obviously has no idea of what is involved and never made the slightest effort to run it by anyone who would. Truly cringeworthy.

Same thing as to the recent "hollow point ammo" flap that just provoked some verbal incontinence in the media. Foolish me, I had thought that issue had been beaten completely to death 40 years ago.

Little did I know when I was perusing "our Weekly Reader" way back in the 5th grade that I was witnessing the high point of American journalism. It's been strictly downhill from there.
 
Register to hide this ad
I find the IGNORANCE of some reporters on FIREARMS ISSUES, just TOTALLY AMUSING.

The fact that some of them consider themselves PROFESSIONALS is EVEN MORE AMUSING.
 
Heh -- no kidding. I recently took a few minutes to write a local reporter who was going on about full-auto weapons being banned in Colorado. I invited him to the next Class III shoot in Rifle, Colorado -- reckon he'll take me up on it?

This guy is a grad of the Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona, to boot! Clearly, the standards of objective and well-researched journalism have diminished since the days of that school's namesake.
 
A10 said:
Don't go all teary eyed over Cronkite. That "professionals" "unbiased" reporting from Viet Nam cost American and Vietnamese lives and lost the war. Additional comments on my opinion of that archtypical "journalist" would get me banned.
Click to expand...

That is so very true. I cannot remember his exact words, but some time after he retired, he lamented he could no longer influence public opinion via his reports, or words to that effect. I'm sorry Walt, but your job was to report the FACTS, not what you thought we should be told.
 
dswancutt said:
That is so very true. I cannot remember his exact words, but some time after he retired, he lamented he could no longer influence public opinion via his reports, or words to that effect. I'm sorry Walt, but your job was to report the FACTS, not what you thought we should be told.
Click to expand...

I'll add to this as Vietam and A-Stan have another factor in common .... you cannot blow into the stone age, a society that's already there.
 
Bat Guano said:
Anyone see the incoherent story on CNN concerning the new policy allowing our troops in Afghanistan to carry loaded weapons on base? The writer(s) obviously has no idea of what is involved and never made the slightest effort to run it by anyone who would. Truly cringeworthy.

Same thing as to the recent "hollow point ammo" flap that just provoked some verbal incontinence in the media. Foolish me, I had thought that issue had been beaten completely to death 40 years ago.

Little did I know when I was perusing "our Weekly Reader" way back in the 5th grade that I was witnessing the high point of American journalism. It's been strictly downhill from there.
Click to expand...

Our military is armed? When did this happen? Clinton obviously knew what he was doing:rolleyes:

James
 
TheHobbyist said:
I make it a point to not watch that network. Your mileage may vary.
Click to expand...

The way their ratings have been going, a lot of people seem to make it a point not to watch that network. Their ratings are reaching MSNBC levels while Fox News is increasing their market share.

Not that I'm a total fan of Fox News. I wish they'd have more news and fewer shouting matches amongst fools.
 
I won't watch any of the so called "News" shows on
TV for fear of throwing a brick through my 42" HDTV.
I'll watch local weather and get their "Guesses" and
then switch off. The talking heads care nothing about
reporting the news. It's all about showcasing their companys
agendas both politically and financially.
Oh, and showing off their new suits and hairstyles......
Nuff said.

Chuck
 
A10 said:
Don't go all teary eyed over Cronkite. That "professionals" "unbiased" reporting from Viet Nam cost American and Vietnamese lives and lost the war. Additional comments on my opinion of that archtypical "journalist" would get me banned.
Click to expand...

A10, normally I agree with 99% of what you have to say. In this instance, I have to disagree a little bit. I'm not teary-eyed over old Walter Cronkite but he didn't cost us that war. The blame for that fiasco lies squarely at the feet of one former resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and his Secretary of Defense (who should have stuck to building cars).
 
Duke426 said:
A10, normally I agree with 99% of what you have to say. In this instance, I have to disagree a little bit. I'm not teary-eyed over old Walter Cronkite but he didn't cost us that war. The blame for that fiasco lies squarely at the feet of one former resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and his Secretary of Defense (who should have stuck to building cars).
Click to expand...

i think the appointment of the secretary of defense was JFK's bid to save the auto industry
 
My guess is that most CNN journalists have no clue what ROE means -
(or they would guess it was caviar/fish eggs -pun intended - while eating lunch at the Hyatt in Kabul) -- I am still amazed that networks/papers/magazines send journalists (I use that term loosely)
to combat zones who have no clue about the military -- they don't understand rank, military organizations (theater command/army/division/brigade/battalion/company/platoon/squad),weapons or weapons employment, OPSEC, operational tactics or strategy-
I could go on but you get the point. Rarely, have I seen a journalist who "got the concept" but there were some who were embedded in units who finally figured it out.

But most days, they were "nattering nabobs" who knew as much about military matters as they did quantum physics -- which, in sum, was
a paucity of knowledge.

And yet, the networks let these "journalists" pontificate to the masses about the progress of the conflict and "what needs to be done".

Interesting times we live in.
 
Moonman said:
I find the IGNORANCE of nearly all reporters on ANY ISSUE, just TOTALLY EXPECTED.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.

I spent many hours in four airports this past week. All of them suffer from the infestation known as CNN, usually CNN HLN. I don't watch TV news of any kind and haven't for years, and after a few minutes I had to move away from a television. There was some guy yelling about his position on the financial markets. What was coming out of his mouth was barely coherent, perfectly cliche, and probably incorrect, but he made up for all of it with volume.

Then, sadly, it was playing in the hotel breakfast room, which had the beneficial effect of making me eat much faster, thereby allowing me to arrive at my client early.

And, it was on the DirecTV list offered by United Airlines on their 737-800 from LAX-CLE. But this time I was not forced to suffer. I watched Adult Swim on Cartoon Network instead, and I was not only more entertained, I was probably more informed.
 
Duke426 said:
A10, normally I agree with 99% of what you have to say. In this instance, I have to disagree a little bit. I'm not teary-eyed over old Walter Cronkite but he didn't cost us that war. The blame for that fiasco lies squarely at the feet of one former resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and his Secretary of Defense (who should have stuck to building cars).
Click to expand...

Americas opinion was generally in support of the war. with the exception of a small group of malcontents who where generally supported and funded by foreign governments. We won every battle, including Tet. Cronkite spent a week reporting all of the "bad" stuff about the war, showing our guys in a very unfavorable light. The country had trusted him and viewed him as Americas journalist and conscience (this was rooted in his tearful reporting of the assassination of President Kennedy). When he concluded the war was lost, mainstream America believed him and began demanding an end to the war. Nixon was president at the time, and needed the support of the American people so we withdrew. Congress then failed to fulfill the promises and obligations of support for the South Vietnamese. The north, with the support of Communist China, overran the south and slaughtered anyone they believed had cooperated with the US.

Please don't take my word for it. Please research this. And please understand my offense, because I was lied to about the war and believed abandoning the South Vietnamese was the right thing to do. Leaving our ally high and dry was one of the most reprehensible things we have ever done, and set us up for the world situation we face today. Our enemies today believe that, if they wait long enough and turn the opinion of the American public, we can be defeated. They are right.
 
Last edited:
Research

A10 said:
Americas opinion was generally in support of the war. with the exception of a small group of malcontents who where generally supported and funded by foreign governments. We won every battle, including Tet. Cronkite spent a week reporting all of the "bad" stuff about the war, showing our guys in a very unfavorable light. The country had trusted him and viewed him as Americas journalist and conscience (this was rooted in his tearful reporting of the assassination of President Kennedy). When he concluded the war was lost, mainstream America believed him and began demanding an end to the war. Nixon was president at the time, and needed the support of the American people so we withdrew. Congress then failed to fulfill the promises and obligations of support for the South Vietnamese. The north, with the support of Communist China, overran the south and slaughtered anyone they believed had cooperated with the US.

Please don't take my word for it. Please research this. And please understand my offense, because I was lied to about the war and believed abandoning the South Vietnamese was the right thing to do. Leaving our ally high and dry was one of the most reprehensible things we have ever done, and set us up for the world situation we face today. Our enemies today believe that, if they wait long enough and turn the opinion of the American public, we can be defeated. They are right.
Click to expand...

Yes, research the war, read "The Pentagon Papers" (Gravel edition) and "The Best and The Brightest", I have
 
A10 said:
Americas opinion was generally in support of the war. with the exception of a small group of malcontents who where generally supported and funded by foreign governments.
Click to expand...

As I recall it, US opinion was very much against the war by 1968, enough so to cause a sitting president not to run for re-election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bratastic007
Thoughts on Freedoms and Firearms
Replies
5
Views
1K
Yeutta
Y

Latest posts

Back
Top