Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: CNN News Staffers Revolt Over Blown Coverage [View all]Cosmocat
(15,413 posts)67. The problem was that BOTH of them wanted to slam the shiite out of the president
Good old wolfied and the the other regular twit, could not say in enough ways how badly this hurt the president.
Funny thing is, it took all of a few minutes for the "liberal" media to adapt from wanting it to be overturned to slam the President to finding 100 different ways why it not getting overturned was bad news for the president.
In fact, CNNs "coverage" of this should be the textbook example of the fallacy of the "liberal media."
They get ahead of the story and scream over how it getting overturned destroys the President, THEN, when they get up to speed about it NOT being overturned it was ... BAD NEWS for the President.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
112 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yes, nanabugg. You read the last lines of each section first and then go to the beginning.
JDPriestly
Jun 2012
#63
When a decision's more than a hundred pages long you kinda need more than the first few words. (nt)
Posteritatis
Jun 2012
#9
Unfortunately for them, the SCOTUS doesn't release its decisions as Facebook updates n/t
deutsey
Jun 2012
#26
The problem was that BOTH of them wanted to slam the shiite out of the president
Cosmocat
Jun 2012
#67
I did notice they had a job posting for a copy editor as of yesterday afternoon.. (nt)
Posteritatis
Jun 2012
#8
Did that mensa candidate *really* put "CNN" and "gold standard" in one sentence??
Blue_Tires
Jun 2012
#13
I and many others have long regarded CNN as the gold standard in news. The 1st one I turn to for
Honeycombe8
Jun 2012
#105
John King is the slimiest of the lot. He was thrilled that he was able to say that it was damaging
AlinPA
Jun 2012
#17
No, 4 justices said it WAS constitutional both under the commerce and necessary & proper clauses.
RBInMaine
Jun 2012
#93
You're parroting the right wing on this. No, certain foods are discretionary. Healthcare isn't.
RBInMaine
Jun 2012
#108
Ah, no. Supreme Court decisions don't work that way. The details actually matter.
yardwork
Jun 2012
#30
Um, the SCT won't change the way they write opinions to accomodate the "morons" at Fox News and CNN.
WeRQ4U
Jun 2012
#37
They are supposed to be journalists, you don't go on the air with something as important as this
sabrina 1
Jun 2012
#41
That's no excuse. CBS got it right in a sober careful evaluation of what was written. CNN and Fox
AlinPA
Jun 2012
#77
BS! They issue a SYNOPSIS of their decision a few pages long. SCOTUS BLOG had is right immediately.
RBInMaine
Jun 2012
#92
I stopped regularly watching them ever since Wolf Blister orgasmed on-air
aint_no_life_nowhere
Jun 2012
#50
I changed my mind about giving them slack after watching the 10 minutes of reporting
rufus dog
Jun 2012
#29
FOX does it every day. Eventually all Corporate News will just make up a narrative
harun
Jun 2012
#60
They probably had two versions ready to go. That they got it wrong is bad but worse
EFerrari
Jun 2012
#53
I agree. John King was reading his crap about eveything being a failure for the President on this
AlinPA
Jun 2012
#82
My advice to CNN: Stop trying to compete with Fox, and focus on reporting the news.
JDPriestly
Jun 2012
#59