Ok, now before anyone turns around and talks about how bias we are here at Patriot Missive, let me point out- we regularly acknowledge our leanings- not to mention- any source we pull our news from. We link so you can judge the stories for yourself.
That said, news media giant CNN is on a roll the past few days. You most probably didn’t hear the story of CNN’s coverage of steroids in wrestling, however, CNN has been caught in the act of trying to edit an interview. They tried to make it appear that former WWE champion John Cena said he does take steroids and he’ll never be caught. When in fact, his statement about steroid use was he had “absolutely not” taken steroids. But that wouldn’t be sensational. Luckily the wrestling organization thought ahead to get footage of the whole interview from start to finish and post it on their website. It eventually prompted complaints and an eventual re-edit of the interview by CNN.
The interviews and more can be found here.
Of course the most telling quote from the whole story and aftermath comes from wrestler Cena himself:
“That was the thing that I was most hit with. This is a one-hour documentary on wrestling and as much as I like to think the world revolves around WWE because I’m so proud of what I do, there are bigger fish to fry out there like the war in Iraq, the presidential race, et cetera, et cetera. And if they’re messing with my quote for an hour documentary just to get the point across that they want the viewing public to think that we’re all on drugs, I can only imagine what they’ve done. It puts everything that they’ve done so far in speculation. In an honest news company that’s not the position you want to be in.”
Fair point, and one that makes our next story all the better.
There are very few political analysts more closely associated with the Clintons than James Carville, who was a key adviser to Mr. Clinton in the 1992 campaign.
So it’s no surprise that Mr. Carville’s appearance on a round table after last night’s CNN-sponsored Democratic debate is arousing some morning-after controversy.
Why controversy? What’s the big deal? Glad you asked. Carville is also an informal advisor to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President. So by placing someone who is obviously biased onto the round table discussion- but not acknowledging his political business ties- it paints an unfair portrait for anyone who thought he was just another political analyst with no agenda.
But the agenda was made even more obvious when in addition to being very open with his praise of Clinton- he was also quite critical of Sen. Obama.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer is also being taken to task for his overall handling of the debate- and especially the closing question for the debate, which had nothing to do with politics whatsoever.
Maria Parra-Sandoval, 22, a senior political science major at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said she wanted to ask the Democratic frontrunner where she stood on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear repository in Nevada, an issue about which she said she wrote a paper as a finalist for a Truman Scholarship.
Instead, she said, CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux told her right before the end of the debate to go with the following question:
“This is a fun question for you. Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?”
The question got a big laugh, and Clinton answered swiftly:
“Now, I know I’m sometimes accused of not being able to make a choice.
“I want both.”
To a roar of applause and more laughter, moderator Wolf Blitzer closed out the night.
Doesn’t it just make you all warm and fuzzy? In a time where disclosures of planted questions and non-answers are drawing the ire of the American public- this kind’ve nonsense is the last thing any candidate needs, and the last the the public should really want. Mr. Cena- you wanted to know what else they’ve done- here are your answers.
Popularity: 13% [?]
November 17th, 2007 at 6:54 am
This is a good article about the girl who asked the “Pearls or Diamonds” question. Too bad her Myspace page is now set to private. I can imagine she was getting bombarded after it was publicized.
It enrages me on so many levels. Not only is it disgusting how the media is controlling the situation but also that this particular question would NEVER be asked to one of the male candidates.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
True, “Diamonds or Pearls?” is deliberately aimed towards Hillary. But hope you don’t forget the infamous question asked of husband and former President Bill when he was first running for office- “Boxers or Briefs?”.
Apparently Clintons just have a knack for useless softball questions being lobbed their way.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
I’ve heard of CNN being called the Communist News Network in the past for their supposive far-leftist views….I’ll be damned, there was some truth to it in the long run! I’ve also heard many news networks called leftist as well.
Personally, I fall somewhere in the middle of political bias. I believe both sides are full of shit and political corruption. I figure if you take the b.s. out of both sides, you end up in the middle where I am with a less biased view of it all.
As for news networks, bias turns facts into embellishments and lies..the people need the untainted facts and decide for themselves what they believe in. Ah…a perfect world. Instead we’re left with biased drivel and celebrities run amok…
I WANT REAL NEWS!!!! Maybe Ms. Missive and Skitz Jones could provide us with an internet based news show next??? I love that though your opinions may be biased, the facts are given as is without any creative liscense as to their content.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I don’t want the Cosbys/Obama family moving into the Oval office. Simply put, Obama is certainly not the most qualified person to be President. He’s all fluff and no substance. But the mentally challenged American voters are again voting with their asses instead of their heads. Look for the sales of Jello Pudding Pops to sky rocket in 2009.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
You’re walking on a fine line of racism here, Karl. I don’t like moderating comments but I will if need be.
As for the “mentally challenged American voters”… you don’t seem to be too far from that description either.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Dear Emperor: (Karl Rove)
Have you realized that none of what we’re being given to vote for will be an effective leader?
Hillary herself is a junior senator…and from seeing the Clinton family business practices…
McCain wants to stay in Iraq for another 100 years…um…how many more dead soldiers do you want to see in the next century?
Obama hasn’t been around long enough to do much harm…that’s why people like him. It’s because he hasn’t screwed the American public over yet…give him time and he’ll be up there with Bush, Clinton, Hoover, etc…
As for your inference to Jello pudding pops…”There’s always room for Jello!”
It’s 2008 for the love of God, when are idiots like you going to put the superficial b.s. aside and decide a person’s value by their actions, or who they are and what they stand for?
I’d rather have a African-American, female, Muslim president who will do what’s right and ethical than some bigoted, greedy idiot who will screw us over for profit, greed, etc.
(The Muslim thing had nothing to do with Obama…just a point that I don’t care on a person’s religion, and being Muslim in this country is akin to being a WWII Asian American.) If anyone doesn’t get the Asian-American reference, well your too stupid to understand the rest of this and I’m about fed up with this kind of b.s. to bother explaining anymore.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:39 am
well, I no longer feel so bad for my earlier “posting faux pas”.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:47 am
“It’s 2008 for the love of God”… yes, thank you Olivia. Old habits die hard, I guess.
Chris - Your comments are some of the most thought provoking. It’s been nice having a different view on events (even if I do disagree with them). As long as we all stay away from blatant ignorance (cough.. Karl), then you’re swell in my book.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:50 pm
i agree with karl, the reference he made to pudding pops is a swipe at cosby, over his glossy portrayal of the leave it to beaver styled cosby show, that was much critisized by african american leaders in the 1980’s because it failed to deal with real problems faced by african american’s. karl makes the comparision to the obama campaign because of the glossy speaches without meat and potatoes details, and the media’s bias toward the obama campaigns. if you read something racial into karl’s statement, then you should probablly take that up with your therapist, the karl cardenas lieck that i know doesn’t have racist bone in his body, how do i know so much about him? i am married to him, yes i said married we live in canada because of the descrimination we faced back home in texas. i submit that olivia might have some deep-seeded prejudices against anglo’s though since assuming by karl’s last name he was 100% anglo. we need the dialogue about race,ethnicity, gender, age, and sexual orientation if we are ever going to move on as a people. if you are ever in doubt about a statement being discriminatory it is your duty/right to ask and challenge it, even if its uncomfortable.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:25 pm
my dears, what the hell are you all talking about? the pudding pops were a reference to how shallow in substance obama’s campaign and message is. it’s sweet and sugary like the cosby show, but it isn’t reality. i want clear solutions to real problems the united states faces; not cheap second-hand speaches of another man’s genius. (and by genius i mean MLK) for god sakes get hold of your ignorant rantings. it cheapens your soul dear. before you start critizing someones writing and making assumptions, make sure you know what your reading or ask.
February 21st, 2008 at 5:39 pm
First of all, I applaud you and your partner for making the hard choice of going to Canada to gain peace of mind with each other. As a gay American myself (yes, we’re everywhere), I’m obviously in support of your lifestyle and believe that your opinions are perfectly valid. But it actually makes me more shocked by the harshness you both have against Obama since he’s one of the few candidates who supports gay rights.
As for the pudding pop comment. I think it should be noted that making such a statement could easily be viewed as either racist or not. Without any clarification as to WHY you said it, it’s hard for any discerning reader to understand exactly what you meant.
In regards to Obama being all talk and no action, I think I can go so far as saying ALL the candidates are a bunch of wind bags at this point. The difference is that Obama is actually inspiring a country that is facing one the worst economic challenges she may have ever experienced. It’s gonna take a lot of motivation, excitement, and unity to get this country back to the once mighty (and respected!) nation it once was. Each candidate has clearly outlined their “game plan” for each of the major issues our country is concerned about, including Obama, on their websites. Clinton has her “meat and potatoes” posted just as clearly as Obama does. I scratch my head when people say Obama is too “glossy” and doesn’t reveal his true “agenda”. Just like Clinton or McCain, their positions are all easily accessible if people would just take a moment to read.
February 21st, 2008 at 9:34 pm
we are actually a split house i am for senator obama and karl is a hillary fan, but we agree to disagree. i was simply explaining karl’s opinion, and not mine. although i do not agree with the tremendous bias of the media has shown to obama, making him appear glossy and sugary while attacking hillary all for the sake of ratings. the ultimate victory of the party is paramount. this will only be acheived by all factions of american society refusing to give in to wedge issues. if women and minorities had turned out and voted to protect my right to marry who i choose most of those silly marriage amendments would not have passed against glbt americans and allowed for yet again for the tyranny of the majority. when will america’s women, racial minorities, and sexual minorities learn to stick together? if the numbers of voters in the primaries and caucuses are any indication the status quo is in trouble and liberty might again have a chance.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:17 am
Eh, I apologize. It was easy to take the comment out of context.
As for myself…I have nothing against Anglos or anyone else for that matter. I’d much rather call an asshole an asshole because he is an asshole, not because of their race, religion, creed, sexual preference, etc.
Anyway, I could’ve sworn Karl’s name was Karl Rove on the comments when I wrote that…hence the emperor reference.
Ms Missive…Obama isn’t really that gay friendly…unless he’s jumped onto the other side of the fence since becoming a front runner. Two months ago he opposes same sex marriages, opposes the FMA, but promotes civil unions…
He doesn’t want any gay couple to marry, but refuses to support an ammendment making marrage only constitutionally legal for straight couples, but may just let ya get the legal benefits of a marriage….Sounds like he’s pandering to both sides without committing to an honest stance on the issue. BUT, that’s just me, lol.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:21 am
P.S. Just in case anyone was wondering, or I just feel like opining a bit more…
DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act)
You know that lovely little bit of anti-gay legislation….Hillary’s husband okayed it as president. Makes ya think. Her stance is the same as Obama’s.
Don’t take this as I’m in support of McCain…I can’t even decide who to vote for because I wouldn’t trust any of these idiots to manage a McDonald’s!!
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:06 am
*just a side note…..yes, at the time of your post, Karl Rove WAS the name heading. (although I can see now that we are past this!
)
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:09 am
BTW, Ms. Missive, I very much appreciate your comment concerning myself. It doesn’t make me feel so bad about voicing my opinions and thoughts, even though they sometimes only make sense to me…lol ;).
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Olivia - Yes, it’s true that Obama isn’t exactly 100% pro-gay marriage/rights, “but he refuses to support an ammendment making marriage only constitutionally legal for straight couples”. This is the most important stance a candidate should have (at this point of working towards the ultimate goal of legalizing gay marraige), in my opinion. Sure, he may be pandering a bit to both sides, but his refusal to support that piece of trash marriage ammendment speaks volumes.
Chris - You’re welcome and keep those comments commin’! I need something to respond to, ya know?