CNN Anchor Lemon Has The Roesgen Itch
BY : WC WINDBAG
Certain people have problems with Fox News, but they rarely have an eye for CNN anchors who have Obama on the brain:
CNN’s Don Lemon was, as always, displaying his ability to take sides from the start by not asking a question, but aggressively accusing the organizers’ motivation with such vigor it would make opinion columnists blush:
Lemon: Where was the outrage 5 years ago? 10 years ago? 15 years ago? Why, all of a sudden this outrage now? At least the President is trying to reform health care, so where did the outrage suddenly come from?
At least the President is trying to reform health care? As opposed to whom? This could have been a fair and legitimate question, but Lemon took on a tone of advocate and betrayed his role of journalist. In his even-toned answer, the protest organizer used the term “real Americans”, but then quickly added a qualifier to that answer:
CommunityProtest Organizer: Well Don, this is the second town hall he has done in the past week that I… that I actually saw real Americans get up and ask questions. It wasn’t a pre-selected group or a ticketed…
At this point, Lemon gets upset, although he tries to cushion his inner anger in third person, but can not hide his disdain:
Lemon: Well hang on, before you do that… Real Americans. That’s another term that really upsets people. We are all, real Americans!
Yep, he struck a nerve alright. The organizer, obviously not meaning to offend, tried again to calmly explain the Lemon:
CommunityProtest Organizer: Let me tell you what I mean by that. Where anybody can get in, and anyone can ask a question, and you have seen a completely different tenor in the town hall he held on Tuesday and today, the town halls we have seen previously in this debate. That is what I mean by “real Americans”.
Seems reasonable to me. He is not calling anyone a “fake”, but rather he is trying to be clear that he is talking about the general public, and not some room full of professional cheerleaders or political activists with connections. Just some open door, run of the mill public… you know, a debate on health care. Not the “I see people with mean signs outside” kind of debate. Lemon was probably OK with that explanation, right?
Lemon: OK, so maybe… you know what? The whole “real American” thing, can we lose that “real Americans”? Because everyone in this country who is a citizen of this country, we’re all real Americans. And that is part of the issue that really sets people off and divides people. So let’s get rid of that real Americans, we’re all… I’m a real American, you’re a real American, conservative, liberals, independent… we’re all poor, rich, real Americans.
Whose it setting off Don?
Lemon’s advocacy reminds me of another CNN reporter who also had a passion against the mob. Speaking of which, where is Susan Roesgen lately?
- If Socialized Healthcare Is So Great... - February 2nd, 2010
- Brown Victory: Irony and Reason Lost on Some Dems - January 21st, 2010
- Comments Come Alive - January 16th, 2010
- Transparency Illusion; UPDATE: CNN's Cafferty Losses His Obama-Fevah ...; UPDATE2: Dem Congressman "We aren't transparent." - January 7th, 2010
- Global Warming Freezes Planet - January 5th, 2010
CNN v Fox. They are both terrible.
Some of you gents just love Fox, but they are indefensible to me.
Believe it or not, I am not too big of a fan of Fox either. I only really watch Special Report (6:00 ET) and Fox News Sunday. Oh, and election coverage. I am not big on the opinion shows where they yell at guests… even if they are the most popular shows. But IMHO, you can not beat the political reporting on Special Report. Chris Wallace is the best on Sunday morning, although that is not saying much.
Fox News would not be as popular with the public without a blatant disregard for real reporting exhibited at the major networks (NBC, CBS, ABC & CNN). Whether real or imagined, the public seems to like the reporting and news at Fox News. The numbers don’t lie.
The hatred of Fox News from the left is astounding to me. The left indicate some high level of bias in their programming but ignore bias in news programs at networks like MSNBC. New programs are supposed to be biased – that is why they are tagged as opinion shows. Kind of like the OP-ED page for TV networks. Mike, I’m sure you would agree that there is a built in bias with programs like O’Reilly and Hannity as well as Maddow and Olbermann. Outside of these opinion programs, where is the specific bias?
Personally, I have very little time to watch any television. I would rather watch sports, play with my kids, work in the yard or read while I am at home. The beliefs espoused by the bloggers here at TGI (and in many other venues) have been nurtured for many years through a lot of studying, observation and experience. A particular program on TV or Radio may reinforce someone’s beliefs, but I would argue that it will not shape their beliefs to a large extent.
Madman, I have to agree with you on your last point. No one here is heavily influenced by any particular source, but by years and years of thinking through the issues for ourselves. We have been accused of suckling our opinions from blogs, Fox, and talk radio. Nothing is further from the truth.
Characterizing us any other way is just an incorrect caricature.
You gents find CNN a joke; those with a more liberal bent (you guys call them the left) find Fox a joke. I know a lot of people on both sides and I don’t know a single person that hates Fox.
When you watch CNN I am sure you can point to a lot of bias against the right, yet when a more liberal person watches CNN they can’t see the bias. The opinions expressed match their own point of view. Similarly, in exactly the same way, when you watch Fox you cannot see the bias against the left; their position matches your point of view.
I listen to news probably significantly different than some of you, although at least one of you listens to NPR. The way I listen to news is to listen on news on both sides. I watch Fox, CNN, and NPR. My primary source for in-depth interviews is NPR. I watch CNN for some fast news gathering. Fox to get the other spin.
About opinion shows on the right, both at Fox and on talk radio, I agree that most listeners are already conservative. The shows win no new converts (their market growth prospects are limited).
The more important aspect of those shows is that they polarize listeners. Listeners receive a single constant viewpoint to the point where they no longer think anything else. Fortunately, America has a deeply rooted political center.
I find CNN less of a joke, but just bias dressed up in “straight news”. I don’t criticize MSNBC, for example, for not giving us straight news on Olbermann, Maddow, of Schultz’s shows, because their shows are sold as opinion or commentary. The same goes for Beck, O’Reilly, and Hannity… even CNN’s Dobbs. The problem I have is when reporters or anchors take on an advocacy role. We see a lot of that at CNN. I agree with you that you also see that at Fox and MSNBC on some shows. CNN just seems to have it more frequently, and more in line with the Big Three (NBC, ABC, CBS).
The reason Fox seems to be such a strange bird in this mix is that they are the only one who bends to the Right as opposed to the Left. When you are used to being hit from the left you will grow accustomed to it, but as soon as something comes from the right, it will seem that much further to the right since there has been no counterbalance.
I have listened to NPR quite a bit in the past, I was a member of my local station, and have the coffee mug to prove it. I’m not as much of a listener as I used to be, with the introduction of podcasts. Still, I podcast two shows from PRI (the liberal-leaning, but entertaining “This American Life” and “Whadaya Know”). I also tune in to NPR during election time and other times of political interest.
I tend to avoid MSNBC and CNN, but catch them from time to time when flipping. They have their issues. I do catch quite a bit of their clips. But if you take the straight political reporting, you can’t get a better show than Fox’s Special Report. Their panel at the end of the show is normally quite balanced with opposing points of view. Regulars include Mara Liason and Juan Williams of NPR.
I don’t think talk radio is trying to convert people. I think of it as a gathering point for people interesting in hearing the issues from people they agree with, maybe hearing a slightly different perspective than their own. Liberals that listen to Conservative Talk Radio are not there to be converted or hear their point of view, for the most part, but are there to “look at the weird and strange animals”. The same goes for Conservatives listening to Liberal radio. There are a few good talk radio shows that speak intelligently to the issues, but if you don’t have the same ideology as the host, you will likely find it annoying or warped.
What you call polarization I call “trying to sway someone to their point of view.” It is not spin or misinformation. If that were the case, then President Obama is out trying to polarize the nation right now, out touring stating his point of view over and over again.
I don’t dispute any of your points or comments.
I do think that when reports speak they speak from their pint of view. When listeners listen, they listen from their point of view. Everything that sounds strange is bias to some and reaffirmation to others.
If media wanted to be fair or balanced, they should have someone mediating the reports, the tone, the headlines, etc… There is somewhat of a difference between a news organization that tries to be balanced and one that doesn’t. We will never agree on which ones are trying, but I’ll give points to the ones that present equal time to both sides.
My definition of polarization is quite different from “trying to sway someone to their point of view.” If someone were to view the right as “evil trying to destroy America,” then I would say that person was very polarized to the left. The exact statement transposed, if someone were to view the *left* as “evil trying to destroy America,” then I would say that person was very polarized to the *right*. Those that are polarized view what is right for America as their camp or nothing.
There are great ideas on both sides that are not being heard. We are polarized much more now than in the 90’s. I blame both sides for not listening.
Maybe it’s because our news is all polarized, or maybe it’s because we now get our views as one liner bumper stickers. Maybe it’s because of talk radio.
I think bloggers participating in a discussion where all sides are viewed is a force that will cut through polarization.
Common ground is always good when we find it.
Exactly.
True on the lack of agreement. These media organizations are supposed to have the ombudsman to make these determinations, aren’t they? Unfortunately, I think that position has turned into less of a arbitor of facts and balanced and taken to the point where they are making sure that the company line is followed… which rarely means being fair to all sides.
I agree with your examples here. I have never said that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, or any other Democrat is evil or tying to commit evil. Nor do I say that their motives are anything except that of what they see as being in the best interests of the United States. I find their methods, ideology, or policy wrong , but I would never say that they did it because they want to ruin America. Anyone who speaks like this and means literally what they say should be on the fringe of society. On the other hand, when a talk radio host says something like, “Obama wants to kill your grandmother,” they are not saying that Obama wants to literally kill her, but raither that they believe that the policies he and his allies subscribe to will lead us down a path where end of life care will be either rationed, streamlined, or of a lesser quality. Rush (to whom I do not listen) is on the radio for 3 hours a day. He talks for 20 minutes, then says one line like the Grandma one, and then goes on for a 20 minute rant, all we hear is the line. That is not whipping up the troops by polarizing, that is failing to see the context. Now, if the context is just as disagreeable, then I agree that is nutter behavior. The problem is that 99% of what is said is ignored for a the soundbite. Off subject, but a good example was Sotomayer’s “Wise Latina” comment. We were told to look at the context and not the soundbite… but when we did, the statement still was as out of water as it was before the context was reviewed. All I am saying is, we should not be caught up in soundbites unless the context around it is explored. Rush and other right-wing radio hosts are demonized for no reason except for their opponents failure to see the whole thing. On yet another hand, Michael Savage is a nut. His context is as bad as his irrational statements.
We open this blog to all points of view so that this can happen. We think that people will take away our point of view, and by your comments, you feel the same about yours. That is good. The market place of ideas is always open at TGI, even if we always start the discussion from our point of view.
I like how Susan Roesgen said that the demonstration is “anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right-wing, conservative network, Fox…” Ah, fair and balanced reporting right there. Thanks for your opinions, Susan!!
I wish I could post what I really think about her…
Buzz, you should always feel free to post what you feel… as long as it is not profane or degrading. There are plenty of adjectives in Websters that are both accurate, descriptive, and apropos.
It’s like the President… I disagree with him on policy so much, why would I ever go for the cheap insult? That is what come folks did with W… called him names because they did not want to argue policy.
I hardly think that Rush is “demonized” because of the sound bite, or for “no reason except for their opponents failure to see the whole thing.”
Those who disagree with Rush (and by extension with similar talk hosts) would not agree with Rush for much of what he says. Again, you may feel more in agreement with Rush. Others will feel significantly less agreement.
Rush’s tactic, and the tactic of many talk hosts is to pick one sliver of detail and paint a huge and ominous picture. They follow the in-a-fight-grab-on-to-your opponent. This applies to all talk heads on all sides.
Rush aside, I can agree with you that there is far too little discussion of the entirety of any topic – at least in the media.
Trackbacks
Tomato Seeds Large Yellow Large Lemon Boy Hybird | Grow Your Own Tomatoes
Leave your response!
Our Growing Debt
Countdown Timer
in 32 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 20 hours, 40 minutes, 3 seconds
Latest Illuminations
Subscribe to Posts
Categories
Authors
Archives
Center Links
Conservative Links
Great Forums
Liberal Links
The Great Illuminator
Most Commented
Tags