CNN amnesia

[HighandOutside]

Forgot TNR report on Bush plans when Al Qaeda suspect arrested during Dem Convention

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407300003

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc..._25.php#003220

Krugman is absolutely right...the media in this country stink

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/30/op...rugman.html?hp

[SirFozzie]

Agreed on the Krugman article.

It's the usual for the media, style over substance.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Agreed on the Krugman article.

It's the usual for the media, style over substance.

It's also a chicken or the egg problem. I imagine the media focus on these types of stupid issues because that's what the majority of Americans want to focus on. Racy and saucy stories, headlines, topics, etc. bring in the viewers/readers. People see a headline "Heinz Tells Millionare to 'SHOVE IT!'" and they read it. People see "Kerry Vows Health Care Reforms" and they usually don't bother.

Who is to blame? Us or them?

[SirFozzie]

Yes.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

It's also a chicken or the egg problem. I imagine the media focus on these types of stupid issues because that's what the majority of Americans want to focus on. Racy and saucy stories, headlines, topics, etc. bring in the viewers/readers. People see a headline "Heinz Tells Millionare to 'SHOVE IT!'" and they read it. People see "Kerry Vows Health Care Reforms" and they usually don't bother.

Who is to blame? Us or them?

Some people may see this a big conspiracy to distract Americans from the real stories, and the real things that matter..........

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Some people may see this a big conspiracy to distract Americans from the real stories, and the real things that matter..........

Heh. Some people may...

I shouldn't pick on us poor Americans, by the way. I actually can't think of one really reputable U.K. newspaper. I like "The Guardian," but it's quite liberal. The main newspapers in the U.K. all tend to be tabloids. I'm talking on a lower level than the "New York Post." There is no "NY Times", "Washington Post," or "Boston Globe" type equivalent that I know of. The "Financial Times" is like the "Wallstreet Journal." I know I must be missing something...

[NoMyths]

It's become a game between some of my colleagues and I to predict the announcements that will follow any positive Democratic press or anti-Administration report. This year has been especially good for that, with Ashcroft and Homeland Security holding numerous press conferences the day(s) after an announcement. This time we got the trifecta: the Ashcroft press conference on the first day of the convention (about the Texas charity), the "Kerry faked his home-movies" bit on the second and third days, and the Pakistani announcement of the capture of a high-level Al Qaeda member (which actually occured before the convention) on the final day. It's like watching a tennis match.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

It's become a game between some of my colleagues and I to predict the announcements that will follow any positive Democratic press or anti-Administration report. This year has been especially good for that, with Ashcroft and Homeland Security holding numerous press conferences the day(s) after an announcement. This time we got the trifecta: the Ashcroft press conference on the first day of the convention (about the Texas charity), the "Kerry faked his home-movies" bit on the second and third days, and the Pakistani announcement of the capture of a high-level Al Qaeda member (which actually occured before the convention) on the final day. It's like watching a tennis match.

Say what you will about the Administration, but whoever is in charge of handling the press is a freaking genius. They are experts in manipulating the media. It's impressive (sad, and scary) to watch.

[Critch]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Heh. Some people may...

I shouldn't pick on us poor Americans, by the way. I actually can't think of one really reputable U.K. newspaper. I like "The Guardian," but it's quite liberal. The main newspapers in the U.K. all tend to be tabloids. I'm talking on a lower level than the "New York Post." There is no "NY Times", "Washington Post," or "Boston Globe" type equivalent that I know of. The "Financial Times" is like the "Wallstreet Journal." I know I must be missing something...

There's The Guardian on the left, The Independent on the center/left, The Times (The London Times) on the center/right, The Daily Telegraph on the right. There's also national broadsheets in Scotland (The Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman), Northern Ireland (The Belfast Telegraph), not sure about Wales. So there are quite a few broadsheets to choose from.

[Fonzie]

I have nothing to contribute to this thread, other than to add that I think HighandOutside might be my new favorite FOFC handle.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Say what you will about the Administration, but whoever is in charge of handling the press is a freaking genius. They are experts in manipulating the media. It's impressive (sad, and scary) to watch.

They had eight years to study the true master at it, herr slick himself, Bill Clinton.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Critch

There's The Guardian on the left, The Independent on the center/left, The Times (The London Times) on the center/right, The Daily Telegraph on the right. There's also national broadsheets in Scotland (The Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman), Northern Ireland (The Belfast Telegraph), not sure about Wales. So there are quite a few broadsheets to choose from.

Any idea what these papers' circulation numbers are like compared to the "Sun" or "Star" or any other of their ilk?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

They had eight years to study the true master at it, herr slick himself, Bill Clinton.

Slick Willy was good at evading, dodgining, weaving. He never put together anything like we've seen over the past 3 and 1/2 years. Nothing. I mean, just look at the whole Whitewater and Monic Lewinsky situations. The media hounded those stories (especially the latter) to death. Clinton was powerless. I reckon this Administration would have gotten out of it with ease, in fact, they done far, far, far, far worse sh*t than either of the two mentioned above and there's been scant coverage of it.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Any idea what these papers' circulation numbers are like compared to the "Sun" or "Star" or any other of their ilk?

Here is a list of the best selling English language papers in 2002.

The Sun 3,541,002 United Kingdom (tabloid)
The Daily Mail 2,342,982 United Kingdom (tabloid)
The Daily Mirror 2,148,058 United Kingdom (tabloid)
The Times of India 2,144,842 India
USA Today 2,120,357 United States
The Hindustan Times 1,857,000 India
The Wall Street Journal 1,800,607 United States
The New York Times 1,113,000 United States
The Los Angeles Times 965,633 United States
The Daily Telegraph 923,815 United Kingdom
The Daily Express 916,055 United Kingdom (tabloid)
The Hindu 853,475 India
The Daily Star 819,203 United Kingdom (tabloid)
The Washington Post 746,724 United States
The New York Daily News 715,070 United States
The Times 619,682 United Kingdom
The Chicago Tribune 613,429 United States

The Guardian sold more that the Independent (350,000 compared to about 250,000), but neither sell many papers. The Independent has changed to a tabloid style of page recently (smaller pages, but with the same content) so their sales have recently increased.

[HighandOutside]

Thanks Fonzie, the handle accurately describes my occasional condition at Pittsburgh Pirates games. Actually, its more accurate of a few years ago...very rare nowadays as I have become a more "responsible adult"...Anyways, thanks for noticing. I go to about 40 games a year and there is nothing like the occasional "highandoutside", right above home plate.