Whether the change was an attempt to copy Fox News’ militant style (that is, to advertise voices that simply lie openly to their audience), or it was simply a cheap product of a new network (journalism is expensive; support for four contract speakers costs significantly less) is irrelevant. The end result was another network that has done as much to misinform Americans as it has informed them. In particular, the network responded to the horrors of its established Conservative experts when they faced the recruitment of a brutal, racist, sexist and always criminal Trump. new Conservative experts who were willing to justify all these things in order to achieve a “balance” and really responded to every new scandal of the new office in the Trumpet fascist circle and the indisputable crime with new employees who were willing to justify these new things or were active participants themselves.
Young, a new member of the network, has inherited a studio that worked very hard to become indifferent to the scandals that any version of American journalism’s past would have brought to the ground. He inherits a coup apologist, a propaganda maker, a covert artist, an incompetent burglar and the stables of the people who have prepared for the millions of pandemic deaths. He oversees a network that has done a great deal of damage to America through a model of forced indifference. There are really very few ways in which programming can get much worse.
However, through Axios there are hints that Licht may have found one way to make matters worse. According to the assumption, Just says his plans are to return the net to its newer, less screaming roots, and a new internal remark asking broadcasters to stop abusing the “latest news” banner for a news equivalent equivalent to a tree story. good start. But Licht also wants the network to be “less partisan,” Axios reports, and there are many very bad sentences in the same report that suggest someone here – is it Simple, is it Axios and their sources? “partisan”, which is almost custom-fried for the worst possible results. Let’s take a look?
“For airtime talent, it involves engaging in dignified interviews that don’t feel like PR gimmicks. For producers and reservations, it involves making decisions that focus on nuances rather than noise.”
We can all dream of a day when airport TV tuned to CNN doesn’t cause a steady stream of well-dressed professional fools shouting at each other, so that sounds like a good move. However, the phrase “engaging in dignified interviews” raises some flags, and when Axios easily goes on to say this:
“Some ethereal personalities, such as Jim Akosta and Brian Stelter, have become the face of the network’s liberal shift.”
… it becomes clear that someone here is f – king with the usual definition of political terms, and in a way that shows someone here it continues to equate “journalism” with “a dignified treatment of those who want to lie to the public, of those involved in crime and slander, and of the attackers of democracy itself”.
If digging holes in lyric points is now seen as ‘liberal’ journalism, which must be avoided so that we can all return to ‘respect’ for people who promote guerrilla deception in favor of guerrillas, then we really are not. we are talking about a return to actual journalism. We are only looking for ways to keep the same lies in the same positions of authority, while instructing air reporters to keep their mouths shut and live with them. And do you know where you can find this coverage?
Everywhere. It consists of 90% of all possible “news interviews”. That’s why CNN and other networks initially collapsed in the fight against journalism – inviting certain lies and regularly dishonest “news makers” on the air, then showing “respect” by lying, insisting that leaders and knowledgeable journalists keep their mouths shut rather than testify. to your viewers that actually, this person just lied to you and we should all make some judgments about it.
The idea of making the news network less partisan by reducing the sources of partisans really sounds noble when it comes to ending the practice of hiring members of the Donald Trump administration, whose clear work involved misleading the public about scandals and fraud. , and actual crimes. Following up as noted by liberal Jim Akosta blows everything up.
Acosta’s journalistic crime for those who don’t know is a willingness to collaborate with the wings of Trump’s press room, whose points of speech were so ridiculous that they can be considered lies. At the briefing, in which many White House-related journalists looked into the steady stream of lies, Acosta was more aggressive in questioning the lies than most others, and this quickly led to conservative accusations that he was offended. liberalwith all his factual knowledge and annoying journalistic skepticism, and this attitude has flourished to a large extent among “news makers” and network experts who don’t like their talk points being deflated and absolutely seeing it as a conspiracy against them.
Simply put, a reporter who asks sharp questions is a reporter, and a reporter who asks sharp questions is a “liberal.” This is the whole flowchart. If you feel the urge to delve into the history of how this wisdom became a traditional wisdom (not to mention the highly monetized book All That’s Wrong Today), search for “Bernards Goldberg” and have fun with it.
But “the very act of questioning partisan claims is a partisan,” repeating everything that is wrong today. This is what allowed the small and ridiculous hoax to flourish as an excuse for trying to overthrow the United States government. We’re here, so CNN is hiring some guerrilla liars, prioritizing lying over expert knowledge. The network helped to do that.
If “dignified” dialogue means not forcing lawmakers or partisans, who are primarily known for their desire to mislead the public, that is one thing. If it means reserving them while issuing new notes, reminding interviewers that an aggressive reaction to untruth will be seen as equally “partisan”, the network will slip into a very polite niche of information.
The question here is who is driving this new funny story, which says that CNN wants to re-align with its more journalistic past by downplaying the partisan Teatime For Assholes schtick, and to take action against any landlord who became known to be too militant in the face of the only American administration that has ever attempted a violent uprising. Who directly promotes “dignified” as an adjective that must stand up to those who have freely created completely false deceptions aimed at destabilizing our democracy on an equal footing, so that no one gets the upper hand. heated about the prevalence of party-sponsored disinformation campaigns today?
It is very possible that Simple is misinterpreted here; As a veteran of Steven Colbert’s late-night show, he is certainly aware of the role of propaganda nonsense in destabilizing both the news industry and democracy, and both CNN’s and Axios’ stables are known to be quite crowded with people who are indifferent. the whole-democracy-live-or-die thing, but it can get pretty hot when the role of professional liars in our discourse is questioned. We’ll see.
But we are corrected. In fact, there is a way CNN can turn from its current propagandist and anti-democracy propagandist into something even less valuable. Promising to free the network from partisanism, while highlighting all those who still tried to carry out the passing work of public journalism at a time when partisan lies were widespread, while the rest of the network spent their days masturbating, indulging and grossly damaging. panels with some of the most willing lies in the country are a signal that someone here still believes that professional liars have as much right to broadcast time as journalists tasked with sorting out their fakes.
Is it Easy? Or does anyone put words in his mouth? I can’t wait to find out, but one idea that Axios’ reports have their own agenda may come from an earlier story in which Axios reported that the new CNN management wanted to.pushes CNN back to the hard news and away from a hot liberal standpoint.“
Oh guys. We, who are very hot liberals, can fully and fully assure you that if someone here were to perceive CNN as a hot hive of liberal views, we would be watching it, not making much effort to avoid it. . What are we talking about here? National Review guy John Goldberg, author Liberal fascism? Chris Wolless, the direct face of the news that was completely satisfied with the propaganda and hoax of Fox News until it led to dead people inside the Capitol?
The only way we can get to CNN’s phrase “hot liberal opinion” is if someone has sucked hallucinogenic toads and posted toad-based hallucinations in seemingly neutral news stories, while lamenting that there are no reporters who are too obsessed with the facts. In America today, everything is wrong to do journalism right. Anyone want to come clean up this nonsense and explain what’s really going on?
Elie Mystal is on Daily Kos’ The Brief broadcasting