Shooting Survivor: CNN Gave Me "Scripted Question", Denied my Question about Armed Guards

[Rion]

Right, and my point is that "media company" is so general as to be meaningless. That's why I used the McDonald's vs French Laundry analogy - yes, they're both restaurants, but they serve different products to different markets. They don't compete with each other. Likewise, CNN and InfoWars serve different products to different audiences.



Not sure what your point is here, but I do think it's odd that you'd post this while also complaining about net neutrality.

"Corporate media is a term which refers to a system of mass media production, distribution, ownership, and funding which is dominated by corporations and their CEOs. "

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[iluvatar5150]

.

 

[iluvatar5150]

"Corporate media is a term which refers to a system of mass media production, distribution, ownership, and funding which is dominated by corporations and their CEOs. "

Seems pretty clear to me.

Yeah, it's clear if you don't want to think about it any more than what's required to push your bogus agenda.

 

[Rion]

Yeah, it's clear if you don't want to think about it any more than what's required to push your bogus agenda.

Well, that certainly turned hostile out of no where. What, pray tell, is my "bogus agenda"?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Or, you know, someone who wants journalists to follow their own code of ethics.

And which part of that code is CNN allegedly violating?

Me? I'm just some guy on the internet who likes to laugh at stupid crap, but keeps finding himself having to explain why censorship is a bad thing to authoritarians.

Who's being censored? Nobody's taking away anyone's right to speak.

Hyperbole makes for poor arguments.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Well, that certainly turned hostile out of no where.

You don't find the definition you posted to be kind of vague?

 

[Rion]

I'm certain that I've seen you link to Breitbart in the past, although, i'm also fairly certain that if I used something that used in the past to contradict a claim you made about your posting habits, you'd accuse me of "going to such lengths, I must be obsessed".

I'm sorry, are you digging through five years of posts to find something? No? Then I wouldn't call that obsessive. As for your link, maybe you should read what you link so as to not embarrass yourself:

"I can't link directly to the AMA since it has cursing in it, but I'm sure if you can guys can figure it out."

Wow, it's almost like I only linked to a BB article because this place has strict rules and I had to jump through some hoops to get a link that wouldn't get me hit with a warning. Since this was before I realized that you could literally just link to a search engine link to the post, I had to use what was available.

And which part of that code is CNN allegedly violating?

In this particular case, I take you mean? Because they regularly abuse it like an unloved orphan.

How about:
– Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
– Label advocacy and commentary.
– Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
– Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.

Hyperbole makes for poor arguments.

Good night, everybody.

You don't find the definition you posted to be kind of vague?

No, what do you find vague about it?

 

[iluvatar5150]

No, what do you find vague about it?

Perhaps "vague" was the wrong term to use. How about these:

Broad. General. Non-specific.

To go back to the analogies:

Does McDonald's compete with French Laundry? They're both restaurants.

Does Peterbilt compete with Ferrari? They both make motor vehicles.

Does Wrangler compete with Armani? They both make clothes.

Does GTA compete with Super Meat Boy? They're both video games.

Does National Geographic compete with Hustler? They're both magazines.

Does Josh Groban compete with Mastodon? They're both musical acts?

Yes, if you generalize enough and go up the taxonomy tree far enough, you can lump together any two things you wish. But that doesn't necessarily mean they're competing against each other.

 

[Rion]

Perhaps "vague" was the wrong term to use. How about these:

Broad. General. Non-specific.

To go back to the analogies:

Does McDonald's compete with French Laundry? They're both restaurants.

Does Peterbilt compete with Ferrari? They both make motor vehicles.

Does Wrangler compete with Armani? They both make clothes.

Does GTA compete with Super Meat Boy? They're both video games.

Does National Geographic compete with Hustler? They're both magazines.

Does Josh Groban compete with Mastodon? They're both musical acts?

Yes, if you generalize enough and go up the taxonomy tree far enough, you can lump together any two things you wish. But that doesn't necessarily mean they're competing against each other.

Now see, that makes a better point. I'd argue that CNN and InfoWars do compete, but not over audience. It's over ad dollars. InfoWars may be entertainment/conspiracy theories, but with CNN's declining numbers, ad agencies are shifting more towards online sources, and this is why you constantly see the drumbeat against Youtube and other competing online sources.

 

[TLK Valentine]

In this particular case, I take you mean? Because they regularly abuse it like an unloved orphan.

Hatred noted.

How about:
– Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

Anything uncivil about what they've done?

– Label advocacy and commentary.

Seems self-evident.

– Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

No conflict of interest here.

– Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.

The others in question here have no standards, so that's a moot issue.