CNNi has nothing to say about the extensive financial dealings it has with the regime in Bahrain (what the article called “the tidal wave of CNNi’s partnerships and associations with the regime in Bahrain, and the hagiography it has broadcast about it”). It has nothing to say about the repellent propaganda it produces for regimes which pay it. It has nothing to say about the Bahrain-praising sources whose vested interests with the regime are undisclosed by CNN. It provides no explanation whatsoever for its refusal to broadcast the iRevolution documentary. It does not deny that it threatened Lyon’s severance payments and benefits if she spoke critically about CNNi’s refusal. And it steadfastly ignores the concerns and complaints raised by its own long-time employees about its conduct.
In sum, CNNi’s response does not deny, or even acknowledge, the crux of the reporting, and simply ignores the vast bulk of the facts revealed about its coverage of, and relationship with, the regime in Bahrain. Indeed, one searches its response in vain for any explanation to the central question which New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof asked nine months ago:
Archive for September 8, 2012
It’s going to be a thin week but post your nominations for this week’s What’s Hot/What’s Not. I’ll post the finalists on Sunday night…
The LA Times’ Scott Collins writes about the viewing habits of the Democrat and Republican Conventions and interview Phil Griffin. I’ll just skip on down to the kicker quote at the end…
Whatever they say publicly, viewers don’t seem to mind the news media’s partisan divide, at least according to the numbers. Executives, however, tend to insist that the division is one-sided — and it’s all coming from the other side.
Fox News, not wanting to be branded a right-wing network, frequently points out that its election coverage features news anchors as opposed to pundits and its analysis includes commentary from liberals such as Juan Williams.
MSNBC, meanwhile, argues that Romney and other top GOP notables reliably appear on Fox News. MSNBC hasn’t even gotten an interview with Obama, Griffin says, although the president has sat down with Fox News, CNN and every broadcast network.
Viewing MSNBC as the liberal version of Fox News especially irks him. Griffin sees Fox News as ideological and MSNBC as more, well, fair and balanced. (Fox News declined to speak on the record.)
“When people say there’s some kind of equivalency there,” he said, “I go, ‘Really?'”
Echoes of the false equivalency arguments of Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes. But Griffin is kind of right that in certain aspects the two aren’t equal. FNC would never have its pundits anchor news events. FNC wouldn’t phone in the bulk of its primetime convention coverage from New York.
Not that either of those points is going to resonate with Griffin. Why would they? MSNBC just had its best ratings week in years doing things that way.