Day by Day

Monday, December 03, 2007

CNN - From Clinton News Network to Corrupt News Network

As much as it pains me, I must admit that the Los Angeles Times ran a very good article by one of their columnists, Timothy Rutten, titled: CNN: Corrupt News Network
A self-serving agenda was set for the Republican presidential debates.

Not long ago I had castigated the Los Angeles Times and Timothy Rutten for particularly inept reportage concerning a New Republic article.

As bad as Tim Rutten's commentary on The New Republic's "Baghdad Diarist" was, in this report he is really good.

Is "Timothy Rutten" a team? Good Tim, Bad Tim?

At any rate, Rutten provided a much-needed perspective on what CNN's about. By the way they selected the debate "citizen's" questions, CNN was pushing their product, not providing a valuable service to their audience. CNN in effect shaped the debate through their choices of questions, selecting ones which were irrelevant or inane given the interests of the debate audience and the significant issues of these days and times.

Corruption and lack of integrity seem to be just the first of a long line of adjectives suitable for describing CNN's performance.

For years conservatives have referred to CNN as the Clinton News Network. Now as we enter the thankfully last phase of the Clinton era, we see CNN continuing down the slippery slope of journalistic irrelevance, sinking to the low of shilling for their own programming.

Those of us who think it is self-serving and tiresome for sports commentators, such as John Madden and Al Michaels, and all the Monday Night Football announcing teams of bygone years, to have a parade of celebrity guests adding inane comments as the game progresses as they pedal their latest TV series/movie/book/album – how bad is it that a so-called news network uses a presidential debate in the same way?

I could ask, “How low can they go?”, but I think the answer is they’re already in the slime covering rock bottom.

The only way they could go lower now is to merge with CBS.

No comments: