If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chicago Trib)   Dear CNN, it's okay to say "We don't know"   (chicagotribune.com) divider line 9
    More: Followup, CNN, news mediae, news cycle, okays  
•       •       •

9307 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Apr 2013 at 10:23 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-18 10:35:11 AM  
2 votes:
I do kind of like this shotgun approach to news coverage, just for the sake of some potential hilarity. Actually, I'm not sure referring to it as a "shotgun approach" fully coveys and encapsulates the sheer randomness of this. The paradigm now pretty much allows for a Wolf Blitzer to just start squawking with "WILD GEESE ARE NOW OFFERING PROSTATE EXAMS IN TULSA, OK" and we just shrug without expecting a retraction.
2013-04-18 10:52:28 AM  
1 votes:
whenfallsthecoliseum.com
2013-04-18 10:42:17 AM  
1 votes:
CNN = Clearly kNows Nothing
2013-04-18 10:39:17 AM  
1 votes:
listen, you guys have it all wrong.  I don't really care whats right or wrong, who did what.  accurate or not.  I just need to update my facebook account faster then anyone. that way, my friends will like me more.
2013-04-18 10:38:16 AM  
1 votes:
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
2013-04-18 10:36:43 AM  
1 votes:
2013-04-18 10:30:42 AM  
1 votes:
fark that, it's more important to say "first."
2013-04-18 10:05:44 AM  
1 votes:
The problem is, it isn't. The mass media don't care about accuracy or long term effects, they care about short-term viewership numbers.

So if you're running with 'we don't know...the situation is very fluid right now, and there are no indications that a break is coming anytime soon' and another guy pops up with 'THIS JUST IN: INTERNET RUMOR INDICATES A DARK SKINNED MALE MAY HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH THE BOMBING', all your viewers are going to go to the other guy.

And since we're the nation of viewers who are so rational and critical that they have made  Jersey ShoreHere Comes Honey Boo Boo, The Real Housewives of (Location)Duck Dynasty, Buckwild, et al runaway hits, you can't rely on them to get to the other guy, see that he's full of shiat, and come back either. You have no choice but to match him, crazy for crazy. All the smart viewers will be watching PBS or listening to NPR anyway.
2013-04-18 09:51:53 AM  
1 votes:
Once upon a time the news worked like this:  A reporters was either assigned or discovered a potential story.  Said reporter investigated the story, reviewing facts, interviewing parties and then assembling the information into a coherent story.  Said reporter then took their story to a person called an "editor" who reviewed it, checked the veracity of the reporters information and making corrections.  That editor gave the work to their editor who repeated the process and finally the story went to the public.

Now:  "Reporter" reads some shiat on Twitter, the story goes to the public.  Repeat ad infinitum.
 
Displayed 9 of 9 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report