Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CNN Now Offers Free Online Video

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the baby-stepping-to-on-demand-internet-tv dept.

Drinian writes "It seems that CNN is now offering its video FREE to the public. Apparently, this is a response to pressure from FOX News who has always offered free video. Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?"

372 comments

  1. Free as in beer? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 2, Funny


    Apparently, this is a response to pressure from FOX News who has always offered free video.

    Well, first of all, it's nice to see that Fox 'News' is actually good for something...

    Although 'free' might be an exaggeration, as you do have to pay for the video by sitting through an obligatory advertisment before you get to the good stuff...but that's OK...the part of my brain that processes commercials is just a big knot of scar tissue anymore. Anyway, you're on your computer, so you can use that time to do constructive things, like find and mark a few mines, or put the red seven on the black eight.

    ^_^

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Free as in beer? by wo1verin3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would think that competition from MSNBC would have been a factor as well. While CNN video used to be free, they went pay for video while MSNBC and others did not...

  2. CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...to win viewers/readers from FOX News. There's a Newsweek piece about it this week.

    [CNN president Jonathan] Klein is making revolutionary changes at the cable network--scrapping signature broadcasts like "Crossfire" and "Inside Politics," shaking up his morning-show ensemble and his prime-time producing staff, and creating a new international news show at noon. These are only the first steps in a broad overhaul plan aimed at getting the pioneering and once dominant cable news network out of a seemingly perennial second-place finish, far behind Fox News.

    And before anyone complains, you may be interested in at least considering:

    http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Med ia.Bias.8.htm

    which finds, in part

    Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our measures all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the Drudge Report, and ABCs World News Tonight) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives. One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News Special Report is the most centrist.

    and

    Based on sentences as the level of observation (the results of which are listed in Table 8), the Drudge Report is the most centrist, Fox News Special Report is second, ABC World News Tonight is third, and CBS Evening is last.

    Given that the conventional wisdom is that the Drudge Report and Fox News are conservative news outlets, this ordering might be surprising. Perhaps more surprising is the degree to which the mainstream press is liberal. The results of Table 8 show that the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, USA Today, and CBS Evening News are not only liberal, they are closer to the average Democrat in Congress (who has a score of 74.1) than they are to the median of the whole House (who has a score of 39.0). [...] the New York Times is twice as far from the center as Fox News Special Report, to gain a balanced perspective, one would need to spend twice as much time watching Special Report as he or she spends reading the New York Times. [...] Our results contrast strongly with the prior expectations of many others. It is easy to find quotes from prominent journalists and academics who claim that there is no systematic bias among media outlets in the U.S. [...] The main conclusion of our paper is that our results simply reject such claims.

    Please note:

    These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample. (emphasis mine)

    It makes me sad when people can't tell the difference between NEWS and OP-ED. Do people also have that same problem with the editorial page of the New York Times? Or just, say, Sean Hannity on FOX News? Is it acceptable to judge the news gathering and reporting capability of the Times by exclusively evaluating the content of its opinion page?

    Further, one of the prime measures this report uses is the scoring for members of Congress by Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the self-described "nation's oldest liberal lobbying group".

    Now, some might say that comparing news to members of Congress, be they Democrats or Republicans, isn't an effective measure (especially if you believe there is virtually no real difference between today's politicians). But at least take time to consider the report.

    Various FOX News "watchdog" groups are a dizzying array of alleged inaccuracies in FOX News opinion and editorial shows, with almost nothing in actual N

    1. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      lol.. mod parent +5, Funny.

    2. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Mod that guy up: +1 Funny

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    3. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You bring up valid points, and, honestly, I'm looking forward to giving that UCLA paper a read when I get home from work. That's a subject I've had discussion with friends with quite a few times.

      But, I do think there may be some use in evaluating the content of editorial pieces along with and seperated from the actual news pieces.

      IMHO, a lot of people may be combining the two (a frightening practice, I agree, no matter what the leaning of the news channel) when they watch their chosen news outlet. And the editorial choices of the channel, I think, should be condidered in some measure of that channel's leaning.

    4. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You're going to get modded down:

      -1, Not Dogmatic

    5. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Americans have such a twisted & skewed idea of what being 'liberal' means, or even 'leftist.' Your average democrat in congress supports big business, tax breaks for them as well (look at the voting record.) Big military (check the voting record again.) And will do whatever they can to stop any form socialized healthcare (think back to hillary's little action committee & the all the democrats that lambasted her for even suggesting health care be nationalized.)... That's your average american democrat.. and that's what you call a 'liberal' .. To me, it's all Very right, Right.. slightly right and then Kucinich.

    6. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Bullshit,

      Liberal bias simply means showing both sides of the story -- unless you are counting Air America in which those guys are utter freaks and most of us on the left hate them as much as Rush Limbaugh (note the ways Franken makes Liberals look like an idiot by not even being able to graciously take an award from an admirer and respect them...I can safely say Limbaugh would have had the respect to thank everyone and get off the damn stage).

      Yeah, thats what Liberal Bias is...telling people there are two sides to the story. Conservative bias is saying this is the official party line and if you think anything differently, you must not be a patriot (a phrase thrown around as if their party is the only owner of it, much like Hates America or I'm A Christian).

      I will say, I do like O'Reilly...not the part about talking down to his guests at times (though he has toned that down), but he at least makes his decisions on his own and doesn't need to run them by the RNC before hand.

      Past O'Reilly, fuck Fox News. They claim to be news, but the minute anyone says shit about them, they scream But Its Editorial. I'm sorry, but editorials need to be based in reality as well. You can have your own opinion on things, but if your opinion is spouting out lies over facts, then thats not an opinion but propoganda. I love opinions from people that come to a conclusion different than mine based on fact. Other than O'Reilly, the conservative media knows nothing about doing this.

      Again, Fuck Fox News.

    7. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by aftk2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One might assume that, if your network's name contains the word "News," you'd hold all your broadcasts accountable to the same level of accuracy and minimization of bias.

      --
      concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
    8. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, by that token, with Fox News being centrist according to the studies, they really are rather rightist?

      Note you need to take a world political view, not just American one for this to work.

    9. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by geoffrobinson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This isn't news to those who have actually watched the darn channel. Gretta Van whatever, Geraldo, Juan Williams, Gen. Wesley Clark appear on Fox News all the time. It's just that they are to the right of most liberal media outlets. And some far-out leftists view liberal media outlets conservative because they aren't socialists.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    10. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by harks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So the media has a liberal bias because it is more liberal than the average member of Congress. Does anyone else see the problem with this basis for comparison?

    11. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "[CNN president Jonathan] Klein is making revolutionary changes at the cable network--scrapping signature broadcasts like "Crossfire" and "Inside Politics," shaking up his morning-show ensemble and his prime-time producing staff..."

      One thing they need to look at...Fox News has by far, the best looking news chicks!! Good grief...they are easy on the eyes. Juliet Huddy makes it fun to watch the weekend morning news...Laurie Dhue, Kiran Chetry....etc. Hell, even Greta got a face lift when she came to Fox from CNN. Get with the ball....good looking people can report the news just as well as ugly ones....get on the ball, and get some better looking news chicks on CNN.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    12. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol. mod parent -1 stupid groupthink...

    13. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Shihar · · Score: 1, Funny

      Americans also have a skewed idea of what it means to be 'right wing'. Your average 'right wing' European is for walling up the nations borders and uses near facist rhetoric when talking about cultural integrity and when speaking against immigration.

      The US is a place of centrist. The European left and right and miles left and right (resepctivly) of American left and right. Paralmentary systems naturally tend to bring in people from a very large spectrum, both left and right. The American system on the other hand tends to move people into the middle. The US surely right (in terms of economics) of Europe, but don't let the fact that the American left is not that far left confuse you as to how far left they are. They both have their advantages.

    14. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Uruk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Some people say that the "conservative" party members in European politics would have no chance in American politics, because they would be considered lunatic leftists with a fringe agenda that no American would dare back. In other words, the conservative European politicians are to the left of the American democrats.

      That's just the difference between third-way european quasi-socialism and American quasi-capitalism. One of the underlying differences in cultural assumption is that Americans tend to think of the government as primarily something that's there to preserve their personal freedom and economic freedom, while Europeans might feel that the government is primarily something to look out for the welfare of the people. These are goals that are sometimes contradictory, such as when you ask the question, "should health care be open for competition, with maximum options for the patient, or should it be a state-provided service guaranteeing full access to everyone?"

      I'm not sure there's a better solution here, but there's no denying the major differences between the two systems.

      --
      -- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
    15. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      From a world political view, Fox News is screaming off the deep end crazy right-wing extremist.

    16. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      [q]Your average 'right wing' European is for walling up the nations borders and uses near facist rhetoric when talking about cultural integrity and when speaking against immigration.[/q] The average American is close to this POV too. Some even go further, like the "minutemen." It's just that the popular view on immigration is not represented in Congress. It's in big business's interest to have cheap labor.

    17. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by WindowlessView · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (Have any of these people ever watched a non-op-ed, i.e., NOT Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, etc., hard news show on FOX News, which consumes the majority of the news day from 8am until 7pm?)

      You have to be kidding. From someone who once thought Fox was somewhat refreshing - before they went over the deep end at the start of the Iraq War:

      Take the morning show Fox and Friends with the two male dorks and the obligatory blonde. Hard to believe but they are more revolting than O'Reilly. I don't know why they just don't make it official and wear Team Bush cheerleading outfits and do choreographed dance routines with their choreographed commentary.

      Take John Gibson and his "the world's favorite sport is hating America" book. Is this the balance to Hannity?

      Or Cavuto, who practically got on his knees during his Bush interview.

      Or any of the so-called business shows on Saturday morning which follows the typical Fox script of one somewhat liberal person always being shouted down by 4 or 5 conservatives.

      Open your eyes.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    18. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by minus_273 · · Score: 0

      Political Affiliations of the Media

      I thought it would be interesting to compile a list of prominent media personalities and show what party they belong to. I won't say if there is a liberal media, you can draw your own conclusions. This is just a list based on what I can verify.

      Verified

      Name Company Party Specifics Proof
      Brian Williams NBC Democrat Carter Administration Official Bio
      Chris Matthews NBC Democrat Carter Administration, Various Senators Official Bio
      Joe Scarborough NBC Republican Congressman Officlal Bio
      Pat Buchanan NBC Republican Nixon, Ford, Reagan Administrations Official Bio
      Dan Rather CBS Democrat Washington Post
      Ron Reagan NBC Democrat CNN
      Christiane Amanpour CNN Democrat Wife of Clinton Administration official UCDBio
      George Stephanopoulos ABC Democrat Clintion Administration official Official Bio
      James Carville CNN Democrat Democratic political strategist Official Bio
      Paul Begala CNN Democrat Clinton Administration Official Bio
      Robert Novak CNN Republican Official Bio

      Suspect

      These reporters do not overtly state political affiliation, but mention political leanings.
      Name Company Leaning Specifics Proof
      Anderson Cooper CNN Democrat "GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding TV Journalism " Official Bio
      Keith Olbermann NBC Democrat very liberal Official Blog
      Sharon Tay NBC Democrat Liberal activist Official Bio

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    19. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by sloose · · Score: 1

      [CNN president Jonathan] Klein is making revolutionary changes at the cable network--scrapping signature broadcasts like "Crossfire" and "Inside Politics," Sure, they have make room for all that quality reporting, like the daily blog report.

    20. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's why I'm happy to live here.

    21. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News for ya .. America was founded on libertarianism .. u know liberty? we used to have it.. And if you think socialized healthcare is possible .. look at Canada's system .. its falling apart and the Supreme Court just ruled it unconstitutional .. Do you think USA would be a world health leader if it was all socialized?

    22. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. (btw, the report used "median" not mean)

      Wow gee, what a benchmark that is! Now that Congress is mostly Republican when only 51% of the voting public voted for Bush, you can say that it's apparent that Congress is to the right of the median American. Where does that put the news now, relative to the vast majority of Americans who are not, in fact, elected officials?

      The interesting thing is how they measured "Congress-ness": "To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.[1] We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate." Clearly this proves that, thinking for yourself, or at least choosing someone other than the Official Congressional Shills Slash Lobbyists for your citations is liberal commie hippie thinking. That or it proves that Republicans tend to cite Republican think-tanks.

      (Have any of these people ever watched a non-op-ed, i.e., NOT Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, etc., hard news show on FOX News, which consumes the majority of the news day from 8am until 7pm?)

      OK, fine, when nobody is watching, Fox News is in fact a fair and balanced news source, and is the most even-handed around. But when prime time rolls around...

      However, Fox Bashing aside, it really is eye-opening to see just how much opinion gets reported as news.

    23. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by uradu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When the news headline reads "Two weeks till President Bush is reelected", they fail to be a news channel. Out with the pom-poms and kick those legs!

    24. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
      You apparently aren't aware of the long list of CNN female news anchors. These are just off the top of my head:

      Robin Meade
      Christi Paul
      Veronica De La Cruz
      Heidi Collins
      Betty Nguyen
      Sibila Vargas
      Kyra Phillips
      I would have liked to have included Sumi Das but I can't find a decent picture of her.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    25. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by stonedown · · Score: 5, Informative
      That study is flawed. Their methodology determined that the ACLU is a right-leaning organization! (WTF?!)

      Here is a long detailed article debunking the Tim Groseclose study, which has apparently never been peer-reviewed, yet another reason to ignore it.

      The methodology used by the authors for assessing media ideology is completely untenable. There are three principal reasons for this:

      (a) The approach G-M use establishes media ideology indirectly, by using the media's think-tank citations and comparing those to think-tank citations by legislators in order to find the legislator whose citations are the closest match. Thus, if a legislator is liberal and the media's think-tank citations match that of the liberal legislator, they would declare the media to be liberal. Momentarily setting aside the fact that this definition of media bias is itself incorrect, their claim would make sense only if it can be independently proven that the think-tanks cited by the liberal legislator are actually liberal. Their study does not prove this at all, considering that their methodology to establish think-tank ideology is itself deficient. Thus, at a fundamental level, their entire conclusion on media bias breaks down. (NOTE: It is not at all implausible that left-leaning legislators may cite more centrist think-tanks in public than progressive/liberal ones, especially considering how the liberal advocacy groups and think-tanks are tarred negatively by the GOP in the illiberal conservative media).

      (b) The use of weighted-average ADA scores (for the House and the Senate) is slightly more meaningful than the Median (which they used in the original version of their paper), but even this is completely deficient and incorrect because the ideological center is set not using an independent, objective measure of ideology but based on the (political) positions of the people in Congress at a given point in time. Thus, their model simultaneously assumes that ADA scores can provide an absolute picture of a legislator's ideology but that media and think-tank ideology should be determined not using the same absolute reference but a relative, moving reference that is highly dependent on who's the majority in Congress and how they think or vote. This is not an acceptable model, for, if the minority party becomes the majority party in the next election, the derived ideology of think-tanks or the media could change significantly even though their actual positions underwent ZERO change.

      Put another way, if the Republican majority suddenly decides to become 100% conservative, guess what happens. The weighted-mean ADA score would drop, even if the Democrats in Congress DID NOT change at all, and even if the media outlets that are considered "liberal", by the G-M definition, remain STATIC (i.e., no change in their think-tank citation ratios and that of the corresponding "liberals" in Congress). In this case, even though the media's ideology has NOT changed at all, it's adjusted ADA score(s) will artificially look more liberal compared to the lower weighted-mean ADA score. (BONUS FOR LEFTIES: This is right in line with one of the long-time Republican strategies of declaring the media (and Democrats) to be too "liberal" by moving the country to the Right). This is not a partisan issue though. The opposite could occur when we are talking about media outlets that are considered "conservative" because they match the citations of conservative Republicans and if the Democrats decide to become 100% liberal.

      (c) The final, and perhaps most serious, problem with their analysis is their attempt to derive a conclusion of media bias using this study - because their definition of media bias, is in itself, completely flawed. Their confident conclusion that they have demonstrated "liberal" media bias is wrong because the study

    26. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by pthisis · · Score: 3, Interesting
      And before anyone complains, you may be interested in at least considering:

      http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Med ia.Bias.8.htm [ucla.edu]

      which finds, in part

      Our results show a very significant liberal bias.


      Of course, this study has deep methodological problems that have been discussed to death in the statistical reporting community (See, e.g., Measuring Media Bias, Michael Cardwell, George Mason University, March 1, 2005). The consensus seems to be that the studied media outlets trail their consumer's tendencies in this area--that is, consumers do not, in fact, demand objective coverage, but rather demand coverage skewed to match their views, and media outlets tailor their product to consumer demands. And that changes in consumer bias precede (and drive) changes in media bias.

      One of the major findings is that the American people are by and large more liberal than the members of Congress (in large part because conservatives tend to vote more than liberals, possibly because of age correlations), so comparisons to members of Congress don't tell you whether the media is skewed relative to the general population--and, in fact, it appears that it is not.

      The second upshot is that, since the general population's conservative/liberal leanings are farther to the left than a study of members of Congress would show, it turns out that not only is the media on the whole in line with the public's stance, but that the New York Times is far closer in line with the public's beliefs than is Fox News.

      Note that none of this is meant as a vindication of any journalistic integrity or objectivity; on the contrary, it seems to be basically a result of the media outlets following the dollar and trying to present the news as people want to hear it.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    27. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genere? I think you mean genre.

    28. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by tm2b · · Score: 4, Insightful
      All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress.
      Ummm... Duh!

      The average member of Congress is on the right. Of course a centrist position will be to their left. When the Democrats controlled Congress, the average member was to the left and the news tended to be to the right of the average member.

      What a crock.
      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    29. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Cat_Byte · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yeah, thats what Liberal Bias is...telling people there are two sides to the story. Conservative bias is saying this is the official party line and if you think anything differently, you must not be a patriot .

      It's funny because it looks exactly the opposite from the other side. Democrats seem to just 'oppose' whatever Republicans say rather than sticking to their own agenda. Look at the last election for example. I still have no clue what Kerry stood for besides not being Bush. Name some Democrats that would think the same way if you agree with the Bush policies? They definitely wouldn't say "well thats the other side of the story but you are still patriotic for saying so". The Christian remark is offensive. Nobody makes statements like that except the liberals. As for your last paragraph, you didn't watch much of the last election did you? Falsified papers about Bush, focusing on one single fact (WMDs) when there was obviously MUCH more to it. Just yesterday they replayed the speech of the final ultimatum to Saddam and it did NOT focus on WMDs. It stated that his days of tyranny and murder were over and they had 48 hours to leave Iraq. As any liberal about that 2nd side of the story and they'll be certain to dispute it was ever said and just spout out something about oil or WMDs. Liberals also conveniently forget that the entire world was behind a resolution to his regime and they all thought there were WMDs. I find it hilarious that the entire liberal population suddenly struck that from their minds and used hindsight as 20/20.

      So anyway...yeah...it looks like politics in general are like that but the finger solidly points at the right as being the only ones who do it. Just look at comments about Bush, Blair, Fox, etc if you don't believe me.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    30. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That study isn't very good for determining bias.
      To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups. We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate...

      ...For instance, suppose a reporter noted "The NAACP has asked its members to boycott businesses in the state of South Carolina. `We are initiating this boycott, because we believe that it is racist to fly the Confederate Flag on the state capitol,' a leader of the group noted." In this instance, we would count the second sentence that the reporter wrote, but not the first.

      So, let me get this straight, a news organization, quoting a "think tank" explaining its own actions which are "newsworthy", shows bias towards said "think tank"!? That doesn't actually tell me anything about liberal or conservative bias, so their resulting scores don't mean anything! All it tells me is that liberal think tanks are either better or more interested in getting themselves reported on (I'm reminded of stunts like running naked through Chicago).

      There's no way you can determine bias, which can be very subjective, using a SINGLE metric. That's like determining the best athletes by comparing height. Or the best scientists by comparing SAT scores.

    31. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by 10scjed · · Score: 1

      Like Music Television (MTV) has music even half the time...

      --
      --10scjed IANAL,AFAIK
    32. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by IntellectualCritic · · Score: 1
      Various FOX News "watchdog" groups are a dizzying array of alleged inaccuracies in FOX News opinion and editorial shows, with almost nothing in actual NEWS content (and certainly not more than any other news organization). Further, whenever FOX News does commit an error in NEWS content, it voluminously and repeatedly spends the next hour, or at least that news show/hour, correcting itself for the benefit of people who may have missed the initial correction. And that event itself is a rarity.
      BS. Here's a good list of Fox "Hard News" inaccuracies, distortions, spin, and outright lies, although there's no mention of when or if retractions were issued.


      http://mediamatters.org/items/200412230015
      And then there's this completely fabricated gem from the election:
      Trail Tails: What's that face?
      I haven't finished reading the "liberal bias" report yet, that may take some time.

    33. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good job. Now check the affiliation of their bosses and other people to whom they are beholden.

    34. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Informative
      Just yesterday they replayed the speech of the final ultimatum to Saddam and it did NOT focus on WMDs. It stated that his days of tyranny and murder were over and they had 48 hours to leave Iraq.\

      That's because Bush knew there were no weapons there. Bush changed the reasoning for invading and now occupying Iraq several times. First was the link to 9/11 but when that didn't pan out it was the weapons. Then it was blocking inspections (which Saddam wasn't. The inspectors left because of Bushs march to war). Then it was because of the things Saddam had done in the past (with a wink and nod from the U.S.). Then it was to free the Iraqi people and now we're at 'to spread freedom and democracy'.

      Liberals also conveniently forget that the entire world was behind a resolution to his regime and they all thought there were WMDs.

      False. The whole world was not behind the resolution nor did they all think there were wmds. In fact, even when the UN inspectors who were on the ground asked for the 'evidence' that the White House had of supposed wmds, every single piece proved to be false. There were no weapons or evidence of weapons at any site the White House pointed to.

      Further, Scott Ritter and others, people who were directly involved with the inspections, stated that there were no wmds and were immediately singled out for the propoganda machine to try and discredit them.

      The fact that you keep using the word liberal shows your bias. There are many of us true conservatives who didn't believe Bush and certainly do not approve of his policies. You aren't by chance a shill for Fox are you? After all, their people, commentators and reporters alike, like to throw out the word liberal as a means of denigration but which only goes to show how biased they are.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    35. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Life2Short · · Score: 1

      A "conservative" is someone who worships dead liberals.

    36. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Hmm...well, the first two, Robin and Christi are pretty nice....although from the linked pic, Robin looks like she might be a bit 'chunky'. I think Veronica and Heidi are not that great. Heidi is kind of an ugly Pipi Longstockings looker with short hair?

      Betty was pretty nice as well as Sibila, but, Kyra is butt ugly IMHO.

      I know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder...but, some of these examples just aren't that great. On Fox...honestly, I only see like 2-3 chicks on there that are fugly...the rest are either knockouts...or almost KO's....

      Every time I tune to CNN, I see some ugly dude...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    37. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by hrvatska · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interestingly, in Table 3, the most liberal news outlet is that bastion of capitalism, 'The Wall Street Journal'. Nothing else comes close.

    38. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the pics aren't the best. Robin looks much better on tv as does Heidi. Veronica, well, she's asian (yes, despite the name) and I have a thing for asians.

      Betty is abslutely outstanding on tv. Again the picture doesn't do her justice.

      Sometime take a stop by CNN in the early morning (around 6 am EST, -5 GMT) and you'll see Robin or Christi. Betty is on on the weekends as is Veronica. Heidi they keep moving around. Sometimes in the morning hours when I'm at work, other times at night. Sometimes even on the weekends.

      I do have to agree with you that Juliet and Kiran are hot. Juliet has a great pair of legs and wears her skirts just the right length to show them off.

      I wasn't trying to disagree with you about the Fox females. Just providing links to those that I regularly see on CNN (though I wish the pics were better).

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    39. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Do you think USA would be a world health leader if it was all socialized?

      Welcome to America! Leading the developed world in Infant Mortality! Beating the other countries' golf scores for average life expectancy!

      The best part? The rich go on "hospital tours" of other countries to get their medical care!

    40. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Ed_Moyse · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I was curious about this, and I decided to try to find out how well an American's life expectancy compared with the rest of the world.

      I've not done a detailed study, but according to the WHO most european countries (which tend to have 'socialized healthcare' beat the US.

      Of course there may be many reasons for this, such as genetic predisposition etc, and perhaps in the US the best healthcare is better (i.e. the rich live very long, with the statistics dragged down by the poor)... but still, I'd be a little bit careful about assuming that 'socialized' countries do worse: from the little research I've done this is not true. F'r instance, it actually looks to me as if you'd be better in Canada if you want to live longer! ;-)

    41. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by shaka999 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I do.

      Most people would agree we have a conservative congress in place. If so then an unbiased news outlet should be to the left of the average member of congress.

      --
      One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
    42. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The US is a place of centrist

      Well, compared to Europe the US is right-wing, both the Democrats and Republicans. I don't know who the hell you are comparing to when you say the US is centrist. Europe's political idea's are somewhere between communism and pure American capitalism. America is only centrist when compared to itself. Of course, definitions vary. In most of the world, more left-wing means more personal freedoms, but less economical freedom. In the light of that, would you really call the Republicans centrist? That said, hardly anyone in Europe wants to remove the social security system or many other things generally considered left wing.

      Would you care to give any example to the European right being miles right of the US? It makes absolutely no sense to me. Almost all right wing ideas of 'extremely right' parties in western Europe are already in place in the US.

    43. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Fox News Special Report is centrist in a true sense. Brit Hume, et al are intelligent people who discuss topics on their merits. No agenda left or right that I can discern, so I consider this to be the definition of centrist.

    44. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Retric · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The left right debate in this country is silly.

      When was the last time someone said "Spending more on our military than the rest of the world put together seems extreme." it's all about "let's protect us from them" without a clear definition of who they are and how and why they are going to hurt us.

      On the other hand when was the last time someone suggested reducing the insane subsidies to farmers in the US?

      Sure people talk about the abortion issue but most Republicans would not vote for a constitutional amendment to change that unless they knew it would not pass.

      Look at all the people going from government jobs to the private sector and guess how many "dirty deals" are really going on.

      People talk about strengthening the US economy but when was the last time someone built a major road in the US? Congestion in the US has gotten worse over the last 10 years everywhere but nobody will talk about it. Things are going down hill fast but hey let's "leave no child behind" and "fight terror" which means what? O yea smoke and mirrors my friend some and mirrors.

    45. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your list gets pretty small when you take out people whose role isn't reporting the news. All you showed is that pundits are biased. OMG, say it isn't so!

    46. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Sanguis+Mortuum · · Score: 1

      How about instead of looking at Canada's healthcare you have a look at the UKs NHS. Its not perfect, it has long waiting lines for operations and theres a big lack of enough hospital beds, but its still nice to have there if you need it, and it works satisfactorally for me. And if you can afford it, you always have the choice of going private instead...

    47. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good job. Now check the affiliation of their bosses and other people to whom they are beholden.

      Because their card-carrying vast-right wing conspiracy bosses hire Democrats to read the news to cover their tracks????
      Some plan.

    48. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Phleg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, like the Cable News Network?

      --
      No comment.
    49. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by jadavis · · Score: 1

      You could say the exact same thing about the NYT editorial page, since they call themselves a newspaper.

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    50. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Cromac · · Score: 1

      And what are they when they call states for Kerry during the election before even 30% of the results are in? I suppose those are real news channels, right?

    51. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by eric_brissette · · Score: 1

      Funny, I always thought Fox News was the only one that considered Fox News to be centrist.

    52. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the American people are by and large more liberal than the members of Congress

      Which decade are you talking about? It can't be the current one. More Americans have identified themselves as conservatives than Liberals for a very long time.

      A quick Google search turns up the Harris Poll that been taken from 1968 to the present.

      The most recent poll from this year shows "that conservatives continue to outnumber liberals by 36 to 18 percent but that the largest number of people think of themselves as moderates (41%)."

      Now compare that to the self-identification of the media and of whom they voted for. It's instantly clear that the media in general is much more liberal than the people in the country.

      About the only place that the New York Times possibly reflects the public's beliefs is in NY City itself and maybe SF, DC or LA.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    53. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by jadavis · · Score: 1

      How can you say that viewers follow the shows that align with their beliefs, yet say that NYT is closer to most Americans than FNC? FNC is wildly successful, so if viewers demand coverage skewed to their perspective, Americans must be more like FNC than the liberal outlets.

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    54. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Limburgher · · Score: 1

      Of course. The majority of the media is left of most of congress because most of congress is on the right. However, by and large, the media still skews right. The only major media outlet I've found is Air America Radio, and that's mostly opinion stuff. The brief news segments are fact-based and pretty free of editorializing, something one cannot say of FOX, where news and infotainment are seamlessly blended. And one wonders why FOX viewers believe Saddam was behind 9/11. . .

      --

      You are not the customer.

    55. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by jimmyCarter · · Score: 1

      Since both the Senate and House are weighted in favor of the GOP, wouldn't the *average* congressman then be a little right of center anyway?

      --

      -- jimmycarter
    56. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, those aren't either. See how that works?

    57. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by iabervon · · Score: 1

      You might also consider that the measure they use to determine bias is how often each one cites a particular think-tank. They didn't take into account anything about how the citation was used (such as whether it was given in favorable terms or not), nor did they consider in any way content not attributed to outside sources. Your post, by this metric, would be based on Newsweek, UCLA, and ADA, plus, possibly, FOX News, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, and the other sources you refer to. For that matter, that article would show a substantial liberal bias (since it discusses a number of sources which, evidentally, have a liberal bias), despite the obvious fact that a paper on that topic with a liberal bias would have the opposite conclusion.

    58. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone noticed that the new FREE streaming video is available in WMV format ONLY? Is no one here disturbed by that?

    59. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by pthisis · · Score: 1

      How can you say that viewers follow the shows that align with their beliefs, yet say that NYT is closer to most Americans than FNC? FNC is wildly successful, so if viewers demand coverage skewed to their perspective, Americans must be more like FNC than the liberal outlets

      You're trying to mix up two different points here.

      1. Consumers select media that aligns with their beliefs. This results in media bias basically in line with their beliefs. If you look at the total media bias (yes, including NYT and Fox News, but also CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, all the newspapers, etc) then it aligns very closely with the observed bias of the general population.

      The paper actually goes further than that, showing that the bias in regional markets also aligns with the consumer bias in those markets--so a Murdoch-owned paper in, say, Massachucetts is much more liberal than a Murdoch-owned paper in Texas, and vice-versa).

      2. Because of (1), the skew that the parent post alleged is in reality backwards; the parent argued that Fox is half as biased as NYT, but that's simply not true. The actual average American is more liberal than the average congressperson, and it turns out that far from being twice as far off, the NYT is actually closer to the average than Fox News is.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    60. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by bnenning · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The average member of Congress is on the right.

      Yes, but not by much. The Republicans don't have a large majority, so the "average" member (probably median would be more accurate) is still going to be close to the center.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    61. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by jadavis · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why the fuss over one outlet that is not as far left as you are?

      The fact is, after years and years of dominance in the broadcast, print, and cable news, the liberals can't handle one conservative outlet. Americans were tired of the liberal message, and the viewers went to FNC.

      Nobody wants to read, listen to, or watch the liberal message. Air America is failing. CNN is in decline. The NYT is losing influence and employees.

      If liberals are concerned that they aren't getting their message across in America, perhaps it's because American people disagree.

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    62. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can't be the current one. More Americans have identified themselves as conservatives than Liberals for a very long time.

      The only response there is to "there are more conservatives than liberals" is "51 to 48". Remember that.

      Especially when you're talking about who the media voted for. If you're going to claim that "voting against bush" is the result of being liberal, your "conservative majority" just vanished in a puff of logic.

    63. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by tbischel · · Score: 1

      The study shows several media outlets scoring closer to the average democrat than to the average member of congress. While the mean score for all of congress may be slightly to the right, the mean score of the democratic party is decidedly to the left. If you believe in the accuracy of the study, then its hard to deny those mentioned outlets don't have a bias.

    64. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      You left Lauren Green off your list. :)

      Perhaps the most unsung hottie of the news world is Becky Quick of CNBC.

      And my personal favorite from Fox News - Jennifer Eccleston - is now with CNN.

    65. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by uradu · · Score: 1

      Well, I thought we already established that left-leaning channels aren't news. I was talking about the remaining one.

    66. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by wsherman · · Score: 1
      bias: a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation

      FWIW, I would define bias in a news outlet as: Do the viewers have their facts wrong in a way that systematically influences their opinions about liberal or conservative policies?

      A specific test for bias would be to take viewers who had conservative or liberal opinions and look at whether the "facts" they used to form their opinions were, in fact, correct.

      I suspect that viewers of FOX would be basing their opinions on more incorrect "facts" than people who relied on more academic/liberal news source like PBS or NPR but it would be an interesting study - I could be in for a surprise.

    67. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by pthisis · · Score: 1
      the American people are by and large more liberal than the members of Congress


      Which decade are you talking about? It can't be the current one. More Americans have identified themselves as conservatives than Liberals for a very long time.

      But that stat has nothing to do with the quote that you're trying to refute.

      About the only place that the New York Times possibly reflects the public's beliefs is in NY City itself and maybe SF, DC or LA


      Yes, this is another point made in the article I cited; not only does the media as a whole trail public trends in liberal/conservative bias, but within regions it also tracks closely (e.g. a liberal-owned paper in Texas tends to be much more conservative than the average liberal-owned paper, just as a conservative-owned paper in Massachucetts tends to be more liberal than the average conservative-owned paper). Indeed, if you aggregate the media outlets in a particular region, their total bias aligns very closely with the region's bias. This turns out to be an excellent way to test your bias measure.

      Note that I didn't say that NYT isn't left of the average opinion, merely that it is closer to the true average than Fox News, contrary to the assertion of the parent article that NYT is twice as far from the mean bias as Fox. Neither is particularly close to the average, though.
      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    68. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      Americans have such a twisted & skewed idea of what being 'liberal' means, or even 'leftist.'

      Uhhh this terminology is very localized to whatever system it is commenting on. We are not saying a politician is liberal or conservative based on UK politics, only based on the American scale.

      We also have people that would rate on your scale as being leftist, they just don't tend to win elections because if the nature of America.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    69. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Because their card-carrying vast-right wing conspiracy bosses hire Democrats
      > to read the news to cover their tracks????
      > Some plan.

      What difference does it make if your anchor is a liberal when a conservative organization signs his paycheck? Even if he manages to go too far on your watch, you can release your unrestrained conservative hounds on him to drown him out, discredit him, or otherwise elicit capitulation.

      For a media that is so liberal, it certainly doesn't do much to hide that fact from us. You hear about it everywhere in the media; it's axiomatic. Either the "liberal media" is going out of their way to let us know their bias, or it is really a bunch of conservatives pretending that they are outmatched when, in fact, they are the real 800-pound gorilla. The latter is much more likely (and is admitted by the less truculent conservative media moguls... probably because they feel they've already won). They have more think-tank money, more control, have more coverage, louder voices and more easily digestible, if not the most accurate, talking points and sound bytes.

      "Conspiracy theorist" is a fun perjorative to use, I'm sure, but it might be worth pointing out that American conservatism has been ever more highly organized ever since the New Deal. Political organization on any side is, by definition, conspiratorial -- to see why, you might want to compare the multiple dictionary meanings of "conspiracy." Of course there is some sort of right-wing conspiracy. Conservative politics hasn't found its success in America by accident.

    70. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by jadavis · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to understand what you are saying, so let me take two of your statements and reverse the order:

      NYT is actually closer to the average than Fox News is

      Consumers select media that aligns with their beliefs.

      My logic would say that if those two statements are true, FNC would be marginalized and shrinking, and the NYT would be prominent and growing. However, the facts are the opposite (I don't know what the exact subscriber base is for the NYT, or how that compares to TV ratings, or even whether those things can be effectively compared, but the rate of change should tell us something).

      Are you saying that there are still more viewers of liberal-biased media than conservative-bias media if you take them as a total? That's the only thing I can think of to reconcile those two points. That would sort of be saying that FNC fills a niche, and I think they might be a little bigger than that, but it's plausible because I don't have all the numbers. As far as I can tell, FNC is growing and pretty much all the liberal ones are shrinking.

      Also, I'm a little skeptical of any report that claims to be able to tell the difference between a consumer demanding reports skewed to his beliefs, and a consumer demanding objective coverage. That seems loaded from the start.

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    71. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before I read your post, could you please let me know if you're from the left or from the right.

      Thanks.

    72. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Liberal bias simply means showing both sides of the story

      Before Fox News, presentation of the mainstream conservative side of any story was rare to non-existent in the major media.

      "Both sides of the story" to you probably means the communist line on one side, and the socialist take on the other.

    73. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Meh, the Republicians are more to the right than the Democrats are to the left; skewing results towards the right.

    74. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by pthisis · · Score: 1
      NYT is actually closer to the average than Fox News is

      Consumers select media that aligns with their beliefs.

      My logic would say that if those two statements are true, FNC would be marginalized and shrinking, and the NYT would be prominent and growing.


      Umm, newspapers are almost all shrinking rapidly. Cable TV is almost all gaining viewers. Those factors dominate the relatively slow changes in liberal/conservative bias in the general public.

      Are you saying that there are still more viewers of liberal-biased media than conservative-bias media if you take them as a total?

      I'm saying that the average bias of the media is farther to the left of Fox than it is to the right of the NYT. I'm not sure it's fair to call it liberal-biased if it is in agreement with the general population.

      But yeah, if you add up CBS + NBC + ABC + CNN + PBS + internet + print +... then even a growing Fox doesn't skew the overall numbers that much, and it's more of an outlier than NYT is (though neither are extremely close to the average).
      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    75. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by sniggly · · Score: 1

      In continental Europe the avg right winger is liberal, pro-business and pro-immigration (need cheap labour). Left wing is socialist, pro-worker, and increasingly anti-immigration (dont want cheap labour). They're not very extremist because they sometimes even form coalition governments together and both generally believe in the need to keep the economy competitive and the people well paid. The xenophibist extreme right wing is for walling up borders and against (muslem) immigration. The extreme left wing doesn't really have a positive program either. The typical European right wing liberal would feel somewhat at home in the left wing of the New England Democratic party. There isn't really an equivalent for the Republican party in modern western eur. Left and right mean different things in the US from Eur. Even between euro nations they can mean different things.

      --
      Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
    76. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      One of the underlying differences in cultural assumption is that Americans tend to think of the government as primarily something that's there to preserve their personal freedom and economic freedom, while Europeans might feel that the government is primarily something to look out for the welfare of the people.

      Nail, meet hammer.

      I have no problem with European philosophies of government, except when they try to interpret our politics by their own criteria and immediately label it "stupid." (That, and if the goverment is big enough to provide everything you need, it's big enough to take it all away.)

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    77. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by pthisis · · Score: 1

      Also, I'm a little skeptical of any report that claims to be able to tell the difference between a consumer demanding reports skewed to his beliefs, and a consumer demanding objective coverage. That seems loaded from the start.

      You'd have to read the report to see exactly how they arrive at this conclusion, but a large part of it is based on (a) seeing established publishers/outlets enter new markets and observing the changes in their coverage and (b) observing the same publication's relative success in areas with different biases.

      For (a), e.g., Murdoch's Boston publications are far more liberal than his average publication, and liberalized rapidly after entering the market.

      For (b), you can take a look at any baseline publication with a national market and see that its sales figures correlate with the local bias--so, e.g., NYT sells better in Austin than Houston, and better in San Francisco than Austin, and vice-versa for conservative publications. It's tough to argue that NYT is somehow more objective in San Francisco than in Houston.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    78. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If liberals are concerned that they aren't getting their message across in America, perhaps it's because American people disagree.

      Or, perhaps, it's because Rupert Murdoch disagrees.
    79. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      Most people would agree we have a conservative congress in place. If so then an unbiased news outlet should be to the left of the average member of congress.

      Assuming, of course, that the representation in Congress has nothing to do with the political leanings of the voters that put them there.

      Riiiiight.

      How else would you define "center" other than "the political leanings of the average American as represented by Congress?" Nothing else can be clearly defined.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    80. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I would have voted for Pol Pot if he were running against Bush.

      This is why leftists are properly referred to as psychopaths.

      I'll bet that your political ideology is in line with Pol Pot's, and that if you achieved the power he had, you would murder no less than one-third of the American population.

      People like you are why we own guns.

    81. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      If you read what I actually said, It's moderates (many of whom voted for Bush and even more of whom voted for Kerry), conservatives and liberals. So your point is meaningless.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    82. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      You postulated that the American people are more liberal than the members of congress.

      I replied with a stat showing the percentage of the American people who consider themselves, liberal, moderate or conservative. You can't see how that applies? The only piece missing is what your assumption is about the members of congress, the group you were comparing them to.

      I suppose you could be assuming that they are all conservatives, from Clinton and Kennedy on down to Pelosi, but somehow I don't think that's your assumption.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    83. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      How can Liberal bias mean telling both sides of the story?
      " 1. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
      2. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice."
      Telling both sides of the story is not having a bias. And I don't know why you think everyone would do better than Bush. You'd rather die than vote for Bush? You'd rather the world end than Bush be president? You haven't committed suicide, since you're still here posting.

      Gun ownership and the death penality don't pertain to the core of Christianity. But there is such a thing as a "Christian world view." Personally, I don't care too much about Gun ownership. Or at least, I don't have a strong position either way. Same with the death penality. Which is better, death or life in prison? Maybe the prisoner should get the choice. BTW, I would like a good, Christian Liberal as the next president. What would say about someone who opposes abortion and gay marriage, but would more heavily tax the rich, and give money to the poor by more tax breaks, national health care, etc? About the gay marriage thing, I still think they're better than that guy who runs the godhatefags site. I can see why you are angry about hypocracy though. I've been a pretty bad example myself, honestly.

    84. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by rsynnott · · Score: 1

      As far as I can see, all major political parties and groups in the US are rightist. In Ireland, our most economically right wing party (Progressive Democrats) is still a fair bit left of the American Democrats. And we're lucky enough not to have ANY socially right wing parties (except Christian Solidarity, who've never had anyone in government).

      --
      Me (Blog)
    85. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Pyrion · · Score: 1
      Yes, and thus the "average" American would be a little right-of-center if it is assumed that the people are represented by their representatives in Congress.

      It's the only comparison that makes sense. Comparing news outlets only against eachother means you're always going to find Fox News hard to the right, whereas compared to the "average" American's view (as represented by Congress), Fox News (Special Report in particular) is "centrist" and CBS is liable to fall off the left edge of the seesaw.

      --
      "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
    86. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 1

      Correct, but it would be good to keep in mind that a truly left-leaning news outlet would also be to the left of the average member of congress.

      A while back I remember seeing some videotapes of network news shows from the 80's that my grandfather had. The outright blatant left-wing bias was so bad as to be undeniable.

      This was before Fox News and talk radio. It is my perception firstly that these right wing networks were formed as a response to a pervasive left-wing media. It is my opinion that in the last few decades that media outlets have become more centrist because of a realization that these right-wing outlets were basically their own fault. Unfortunately, the right wing stations have figured out that being populist gets you more listeners than just news from the perspective of the right.

      I am a conservative, and Fox news has degenerated to the disgusting even in my opinion.

    87. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by WindowlessView · · Score: 1

      Why assume I am far left just because I criticize Fox News? Sounds like something directly out of their playbook.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    88. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      Why do we even bother voting anymore w/ Diebold and hanging chads and all that bullshit. Let's just have the statisticians tell us what we think. It'd be so much easier.

    89. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 1

      Ok this study is complete bullshit. First of all "the average member of congress" is an inacurate way to determine bias. Congress does not accurately reflect the political leanings of the nation (it favors conservatives as they tend to live in less populous states). More importantly, Congress favors conservatives because money is important in getting elected and most big donors favor conservative issues. Polls show that on most significant issues the US population is much more liberal than Congress.

      Second of all, the method they used to compare media sources to congressmen is just plain fucking stupid. Counting think-tank citations in congress and and news stories? Before they set off on this dubious scheme they should have at least considered why there should be any correlation between these numbers to begin with. I see no reason a comparison should be made at all. I mean news and congressional speeches are different. News try to state what happened while congressional speeches try to convince. If anything congressional speeches should be compared to editorials, but the study SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES editorials (for some bizarre reason).

      There are a million possible reasons for the discrepencies. Consider, for example that some of the so called "liberal think-tanks" such as the ACLU, amnesty international, Sierra club are not think tanks at all. They are civil organizations that act in the world outside of Congress (i.e., file lawsuits and stage demonstrations) which can be news worthy themselves. So if the NY times says that the ACLU held a demonstration or filed a lawsuit, it increase their liberal score. But guess what it does not mean the NY times has liberal bias, it means that they just report on what happens in their city and ACLU demonstrations and law suits happen often in New York. And obviously it is not Congress's job to report on what happens in New York city so it is unlikely they will mention the ACLU demonstration unless it is linked to a specific pending piece of legislation.

      To top it off, many of the conservative think tanks are specifically geared to writing studies for lobbying Congress and do not do anything very news-worthy. This is especially true of the Rand corporation and various "institutes". If the Rand corporation creates one of its dozens of studies on the possible effect of a decrease of the capital gains tax, that would certainly be repeated in congress numerous times (these studies are made to be repeated in Congress), but would it be put on the news? Of course not; "Rand releases study" is no more newsworthy than "accountant fills out form". Of course the Rand study will likely be mantioned if there is an editorial on the capital gains tax, but as I said above this whole "liberal bias" analysis actually IGNORES editorials.

      The fact that the government is almost entirely ruled by conservatives also scews results. That is because conflict is much more news worthy than agreement. Consider if the ACLU files a lawsuit against the Bush government. Well that is usually newsworthy and the NY times will probably print it. But the NY Times will try to be unbiased by getting the opinions of the Justice Dep as well as the ACLU. Well guess what -- the present study will say that the NY Times is extra extra biased becaused they count the ACLU as a "think tank" but they do not count the justice department as such.

      Anyways, just after thinking about this for a couple of minutes one can realize the above method of counting "bias" is completely worthless.

      Of course that gets confirmed when you actually read the parent cited study. The study found that their own method classifies the ACLU as conservative, and the RAND corporation as liberal! And instead of admitting that this obvious misclassification shows that their method is innaccurate way to predict real political bias, they fudge their data in order to make the ACLU liberal and RAND conservative and proceed as if nothing has happened. Good job.

    90. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by ATLgerm · · Score: 1


      On Wednesday June 22, @02:01PM [daveschroeder] doth spake the following flamebait:

      Various FOX News "watchdog" groups are a dizzying array of alleged inaccuracies in FOX News opinion and editorial shows, with almost nothing in actual NEWS content (and certainly not more than any other news organization).

      Ok. I'll bite...sigh. That's because FOX has no news, only op-ed presented as news. Other news organizations are really bad too...but FOX is the worst, by far.

      Further, whenever FOX News does commit an error in NEWS content, it voluminously and repeatedly spends the next hour, or at least that news show/hour, correcting itself for the benefit of people who may have missed the initial correction.

      You're kidding right? I mean, that IS a joke right? FOX NEVER runs retractions. Name ONE. I watch FOX most of the day at work (because I have to) and they are shameless about reporting rumour as fact. Although they do ALTER their reports as the story develops, they NEVER acknowledge this. They simply change their tune and prattle on.

      And that event itself is a rarity. About the only complaint people have in news content is FOX News substituting "homicide bomber" for "suicide bomber". Which is, frankly, a perfectly acceptable description of that particular act, ...

      No. It's not. ALL bombers are "homicide bombers". What the term "suicide bomber" tells you that "homicide bomber" does not is that the bomber took his own life in the act and therefore that his belief in his "cause" (however misguided and wrong) is that strong. Noone takes their own life if they think what they're doing isn't important. "Guerrillas", "millitants" or "mercenaries" may *risk* their lives for cause or compensation but do not take their own for what they believe is the greater good. FOX made the change on purpose so viewers don't make the leap to thinking of them as "freedom fighters". Right or wrong, it's ideological and has no place in "news". This is the same practice as refering to "copyright infringement" as "piracy" or "theft" even when no theft has in fact been committed. "Copyright infringement, while illegal, doesn't carry the same weight as "theft" so they use the more disturbing word even though it is not accurate because it instills the desired response in the mind of the viewer/reader/listener.

      But if it makes people feel better, or more self-righteous, or whatever, to consider FOX News a far-right-wing Republican/conservative Bush administration propaganda mouthpiece, more power to them, I suppose. (Have any of these people ever watched a non-op-ed, i.e., NOT Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, etc., hard news show on FOX News, which consumes the majority of the news day from 8am until 7pm?)

      Hard news on FOX...heh. Look. FOX's daily news programming is so entwined with pundits in the guise of anchors, guests and of course "experts" that there is no separation of "news" and "op-ed". Most of my co-workers couldn't tell if the current segment is the "news", one of their many "news style shows" or op-ed. They do this on purpose.

    91. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by timeOday · · Score: 1
      I was going to make the same point - perhaps TV news selection is a better indicator of the political leanings of the nation than is the membership of congress!

      Large corporations buy votes for congressmen by giving them money for their campaigns. Perhaps companies are less savy in swaying policy through their news advertising purchases, because the political effect is more diffuse.

    92. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liberal bias doesn't mean telling both sides of the story. Liberal Bias as reported by conservative media includes most this type of reporting. I call it unbiased -- or at least if biased, it gives the reader / viewer the chance to make up their own mind.

      At this point, I don't think too many mainstream politicans could do worse than Bush...and thats what I was after -- I was using the current republican codeword for demonizing someone with Pol Pot.

      But as to Christianity...Christianity definately says turn the other cheek. It doesn't say kick ass in the name of the Lord. Thats why I don't believe in gun ownership (I owned one once and got rid of it when I realized it didn't fit into my belief system...but it wasn't a simple conclusion to come to). Same with the death penalty. Personally, if faced with life in prison or death? Yeah, I'd want death if there was no way to get out.

      Same with abortion...I don't like it. I think christians should be against it. I don't know, however, if it should be against the law...but don't look to me to support the right to choose either way. I think this is PURELY religious in nature...if we don't have souls, fetuses are not a full human and haven't even developed brains to be at the level of a goldfish. If we do have souls, its murder.

      As for gay marriage, no there shouldn't be any. But at the same time, the gov't shouldn't be promoting marriage...I believe in civil unions vaiathe gov't and marriage by churches. Past that, its your churches decision. We should all be afforded the same rights. Married persons do have more privs than those that aren't.

      I don't hate homosexuals...none of us are perfect. A good Christian...hell...even a bad one should NEVER hate a homosexual.

      But all in all, the hypocrites I see on the right are the worst of the bunch. At least the godless hippies on the left don't claim to want to do anything except smoke dope all day while on welfare. I can respect someone that doesn't lie to themselves about what they are after...

    93. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by johansalk · · Score: 0


      Actually this isn't an issue for debate and any debate about it would be suspect in its intentions; any society that doesn't help its poor is morally corrupt. Period. It's really as simple as that. If some children in a society live in such abject poverty that they're too poor to get healthcare, food, and shelter, when the society can easily afford to provide for them, then I don't care what the self-righteous SOBs of the society claim.

      In the US there is a societal ill of self-righteoussness; many of the wealthy and the religious think they are blessed because they had been good, and they think the poor are poor because of their moral failings. Hence they think they should not help the poor, and they think they (the rich and the religious) are entitled to whatever they can have, because it's a "blessing", and the more they get the more blessed they are and the more deserved it is! Monbiot wrote about this a while ago http://tinyurl.com/43tyl and if you observe Americans you'll see it evident. It even "trickled down" to their middle-classes. I recall an average American guy interviewed once whose definition of a "moron/idiot" was "a homeless person, someone who couldn't keep a job". This lack of empathy, my friends, reeks of stink! There's no debate about it.

      And if you look at American foreign policy you'll see that it is likewise, with so-called aid actually being *far* from being real aid, with a third of it essentially being military aid to Israel, already one of the wealthiest nations(! - aid, huh?), the Egyptian regime and the Columbian government. Overall, more than 80% of the ~$15b American "aid" is actually subsidies to American enterprises doing work overseas, that would've otherwise been deemed illegal by WTO. Compare that with the $50b European aid, well over 80% of it is real aid that actually goes to the poor, and also compare it to the far more egalitarian European societies, where the poor get free healthcare, food, shelter, education, and so on, and I am left in no doubt as to the clarity of the moral issues here, far past any "byzantine debate" by a bunch of self-righteous bastards.

    94. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by jadavis · · Score: 1

      I didn't say far left, I said left of FNC.

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    95. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by sellin'papes · · Score: 1
      Ummmm....the world was against the US going against the UN to start a war....ummm, thats why the UN was against it....

      And WMDs had nothing to do with invading Iraq. Iraq was on the agenda well before september 11th. After september 11th the white house looked for evidence to say that Saddam was responsible when their closest advisors were saying it was Al Qaeda. You would probably dismiss this as liberal propaganda at your own peril, but here's the website on the Downing Street Memo investigation. There is a possibility of an impeachment vote resulting from this memo, which basically states what most free thinking people know already.

      FYI about Iraq on the agenda: Read the Wolfowitz report, written by our dear friend Paul Wolfowitz (now World Bank President!!!) in 1992, outlining US military strategy for the next 20 years. In the report, Wolfowitz says that Iraq could be invaded to weaken the middle east if it begins to become too powerful. Is this 'liberal propaganda'? or is this the truth that was written in Wolfowitz's own hands before he was responsible for US affairs in Iraq? Read it yourself.

      --
      This is my last post.
      [6th Estate]
    96. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by GermanShorthair · · Score: 0

      $20 says you are a prejudiced bitch.

      --
      Karma: Bad
    97. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by samdu · · Score: 1

      It looks to me as though your definition of liberal is the one that's skewed. Socialized healthcare is... erm... Socialist, an extreme form of liberalism. It's quite possible to be a liberal and not agree with Socialism. The fact that Socialism runs counter to the ideals upon which the country was founded every bit as much as certain "rightist" elements of the PATRIOT act, should give you an idea of why American Liberals aren't totally on board with the idea. As it should be.

    98. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by samdu · · Score: 1

      O'Reilly is one of the worst aspects of Fox. Sure, he develops his ideas on his own, but he's a blithering idiot, so it hardly matters. He's one of the foremost pushers of this inane idea of the "Culture Wars." Even worse, he doesn't understand the conflict. It's apparent in his verbage. He consistantly puts "traditionalists" on one side of the argument (his side) and "secularists" on the other side. This is both a false comparison and disingenuous. He Purposefully uses the term "traditionilst" to keep himself from being labeled a "Theist," which would tarnish his "objectivism." A proper comparison would be "traditionalists" vs. "progressives" or "theists" vs. "secularists." There are plenty of secular "traditionalists." I happen to be one of them. He also continuously misrepresents the goal of secularists as being one of removing all discussion of religion from the pubilc arena. This is patently false. Most secularists are simply after a return to the traditional, Constitutional idea that government and religion should be seperate. I, and most secularists, couldn't care less what people say in public. Heck, I encourage people to say whatever they want to say in public. The more ideas, the merrier. Just don't push a religious agenda as a representative of our government.

      After O'Reilly's comments about Sony on the Radio Factor yesterday, more unsubstianted, sensationalist crap, I'd say he might have some more legal trouble coming down the line, too. O'Reilly doesn't base everything he says on fact. He's every bit as much a blowhard as the other people on Fox that you despise for doing the same thing. He simply couches it in a more believable verneer of impartiality than, say, Sean Hannity, who is as transparent as that new-fangled "High-Definition Glass."

    99. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by gandhii · · Score: 1

      That report just ignores the fact that most of FOX's content is opinion stuff. Sure, the same can be said for their competition, but in my experience of occasional channel flipping into those domains, I've been more likely to see a news broadcast on CNN and I've been more likely to see opinion stuff on FOX.

    100. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We do have a conservative congress but news outlets are there to report news. It does not matter how conservative/liberal the people in power are, a news outlet should be reporting on events. I can decide on my own what to think about these events.

    101. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by RRRussian · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that it is the editorial page to begin with. That's the point of an editorial, an article which expresses the opinions or views of the authors or editors. Don't look to the editorial page for facts, look to it for opinions.
      Proof by definition.
      QED.

    102. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      You are assuming that elected politicians are an acurate reflection of the "the political leanings of the average American". Chuckle.

      I'll admit that I find one of the two parties far more offensive than the other (which one doesn't much matter here), but BOTH parties are currupt. The (flawed) nature of our electorial system ensures that only two viable parties can exist. They are a duopoly commonly reffered to (by people on both sides) as Republicrats. A duoploly at war with each other, but with little genuine incentive to remain close to any actual public "average". Politics revolving around wedge issues and sabotaging the other party and corporate influence and money.

      We desperately need to institute an electorial system that can support more than two parties. Prefferably the Condorcet system, but Instant Runoff Voting would be a semi-adaquate alternative.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    103. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Of course FOX came out most centrist by that methodology. Once you exclude any "opinion and editorial shows" FOX is left with the PERFECT centrist score 0. Chuckle.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    104. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, you totally forgot Rudi Bakhtiar She used to be like the only reason to ever watch Headline News.

    105. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      In my opinion (emphasized for flame retardance), we'd be best off just throwing out any party system, period. The more I see the results of permanent divisions within the political system, the more I feel George Washington (I'm pretty sure) was right to warn the country against forming political parties to begin with.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    106. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 1

      You just made no sense whatsoever. How is socialism, a form of governance that places restrictions upon individual liberties, liberal? A liberal government is one that prizes liberties for individual people.

      --
      OLPC Australia
    107. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What drugs are you on? Only a handful of countries supported the US war on Iraq, and most of those countries were eithr close allies already or wanted protection/support for some reason (e.g. Poland). As for the rest of your ramblings... it's so wrong I don't even know where to begin. I suggest that you try travelling outside your own little village and get a real sense of your place in the world.

    108. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      we'd be best off just throwing out any party system, period.

      The thing is that parties inherently live on top of the legal election system, no matter how you try to write the law. They are almost unavoidable.

      If you have an electorial system that can properly function with multiple candidates then natural competitive forces can keep party problems in check. Parties can then split if they need to, and almost any attempt to abuse the system gets punished. In a two party system one party can sabotage the other party's efforts and legistation and benefit. In a three or more party system any attempt to sling mud or sabotage another party will certainly hurt your target - but it will hurt you as well. It would cause people to defect to some third party. It makes dirty tactics backfire. There would also be hightened sensitivity against curruption or corporate influence. With two party Republicrats very few people would go to the extreme of reversing sides, and both parties get away with saying "well the other guys do this bad stuff too". With multi parties people have many places to go to defect away from bad acts. People can defect to a neighboring party, rather than needing to move to a radically opposed party.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    109. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you didn't. You twist facts just like Fox News.

    110. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      To be fair there are also a lot of Americans who interpret the actions of European governments and call them stupid and/or somehow communist.

      One major difference, even evident in your reply ("big enough to take it away") is that a majority of people in the US do not trust their government to any great degree ; when that feeling is not echoed in Europe.

      Europeans do not believe that their own government will turn against them, although it has happened many times in the past with catastrophic consequences. Many governments in Europe have turn fascist, communist and generally dictatorial, but they all failed rather rapidly. Apparently Europeans in their optimism believe that it won't happen again, or perhaps that if it does happen again the unfortunate experience will be short lived, or perhaps finally they believe that, as in the past, the people will rise and defeat their oppressive governments.

      Could the US gov turn against its own people ? I don't know. What I do know is that many times in Europe did the people turn against its own government. This is the more interesting alternative, as govs can indeed become nasty after a while. Could the US population come up with its own revolution, after so many years ? I don't know. I'd like to think that it is at least a possibility.

      Certainly this is becoming a more distant possibility in Europe with the European Union construction, but it is never an impossibility.

      On the other hand the US population generally believe that a small government with as little power as possible is a good thing, and that a general populace with a few restrictions and as much liberty as possible is a good thing.

      What is interesting though is that in spite of the fundamental difference in approach, the end results on both sides of the Atlantic is not that different.

      Democratic institutions and safeguards, general levels of taxing and public accounting are more or less comparable with few exceptions. What seems apparently obvious, i.e. that a US politician would not survive in Europe and vice-versa, but I'm not so sure. After all a politician is a politician.

      One final thing I'd like to point out is that you are comparing the governments of many different countries (say the 25 members of the EU) with a single US federal government. When you add up all the actions and powers of local, state and federal governments in the US you end up with a pretty overbearing government too.

      If you compare the US federal government with that of the EU, you'd find that the EU's gov is extremely tenuous and weak. It does have a parliament, an executive and a court of justice, but its area of power is very tightly constrained. It doesn't even have an army.

    111. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by nathanh · · Score: 1
      The average member of Congress is on the right.

      Yes, but not by much. The Republicans don't have a large majority, so the "average" member (probably median would be more accurate) is still going to be close to the center.

      Not by much? I hate to break it to you buddy, but all of your politicians are right-wing.

    112. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by LKM · · Score: 1
      And some far-out leftists view liberal media outlets conservative because they aren't socialists.

      Haha, LOL! Thanks, buddy, you made my day. Funniest post today. Wait, why the hell is that moderated "Insightful"?

      Listen, do you even know what "socialists" are? Apparently everyone left of Bush, huh?

    113. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by saskboy · · Score: 1

      "Twist facts?"
      Heck, Faux News isn't shy about lying too if it suits them. They know their average viewer is incapable of thinking critically to even notice, and if they did notice the lie, they'd dismiss it.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    114. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      Maybe you didn't read this one exactly right. Those on the far-left view some on the left as conservative b/c those people are leftist enough for their tastes. For example, many in the media aren't totatlly opposed to corporations which hire people and give people jobs.

      Those same people who view liberal media as conservative view Fox News as ultra-conservative. So that probably means Fox News is moderate.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    115. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by LKM · · Score: 1
      Those same people who view liberal media as conservative view Fox News as ultra-conservative. So that probably means Fox News is moderate.

      Did it ever occur to you that it just might be exactly the other way around? Maybe you're so far to the right that even conservative papers look left to you, and the ultra-right-wing Fox News seems moderate?

      I'm from Europe. Switzerland, to be precise. We're a pretty conservative bunch, but even here, a politician like Kerry would belong into one of the two right-wing parties.

      I can't receive regular CNN, but even CNN International (which is supposed to be less conservative than CNN) is by far the most conservative programme on my TV.

    116. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you look at American foreign policy you'll see that it is likewise, with so-called aid actually being *far* from being real aid, with a third of it essentially being military aid to Israel, already one of the wealthiest nations(! - aid, huh?), the Egyptian regime and the Columbian government.

      We (the US) give billions of dollars to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and the PLO due to the Camp David Peace Accords, the Oslo Accords, and Jordan's & Israel's peace treaty.

      These agreements are the best achievements of Middle East - US - European diplomacy. I think it is important that we stick to our end of these bargains, and I am glad when we encourage people to seek peaceful solutions.

      I am surprised to you choose to complain about a hopeful and generous deed rather than, say, the US invasion of Iraq.

    117. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Snaller · · Score: 1

      These are goals that are sometimes contradictory, such as when you ask the question, "should health care be open for competition, with maximum options for the patient, or should it be a state-provided service guaranteeing full access to everyone?"

      Thats only because there is no money in being humane. If you want it to be for all the state has to inforce it, because a lot of people don't care about their neighbor.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    118. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      It has occurred to me. But Europe is so far left, I can see how you can view things that way.

      That's why I support as much information and views as possible. So people can make up their own mind.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    119. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      Oops. :(

    120. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by LKM · · Score: 1
      But Europe is so far left

      Switzerland has a government with 2 members from the FDP, which opposes state intervention in social and economic affairs. There are two members from the SVP, which is an ultra-right-wing party which is socially and fiscally conservative (although secular in outlook). It is in favour of traditional family values, tough penal laws, strict immigration limits, deregulation and reduced government spending. One member is from the CVP, which is a christian party and originally represented the conservative, mostly Catholic opponents of the liberal Swiss state founded in 1848. Only two members are from a leftist (democratic) party.

      Many Euopean governments are similar. How can anyone claim that this is a left-wing government?

      It's simply absurd.

    121. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      2 members out of how many?

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    122. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by LKM · · Score: 1

      2 out of 7 are leftist. 2 are ultra-right, 2 right, 1 christian.

    123. Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      "Liberal" media outlets don't demand war without real justification. They don't print PR straight from the White House. They don't put warmongering on the front page for months, relegating critics to the middle pages (balanced by opponents of the critics calling them traitors). Rightwing corporate media does all that - and none so blatantly as Gretea Van Whatever, Geraldo, and the rest of the people they balance with tokens like Clark and Colmes. Though Clark probably won't last long, unless Fox's calculus shows that he's bringing in more impressionable liberals to their propaganda corral, than the impressionable Republicans he's turning.

      Your post is exactly the kind of inverted projection that rightwingers have down to a science, especially rightwing juggernauts like FoxNews. This disorder comes from alienation from anyone respected with differing vested interests, so common among America's vast heterogenous suburbs, exurbs and rural counties. Complete denial of the truth is too hard, so you have to blame your own misgivings on someone else, so you can oppose them by externalizing them. To keep it simple: It's Fox News which paints anyone who doesn't wave the corporatism flag, whether it looks like Bush or some other spokesmodel, as "liberal", even if they're as corporate as Joe Lieberman. Then they flip it around 180', to claim "liberals" are socialists. It's rightwingers with this binary "with us or against us" oversimplification. Congratulations on renewing your membership.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  3. Well of course it's free by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "Nothing to see here move along" who'd pay for nothing? oh wait....


    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  4. Amazing! by Trip+Mastur+M0nkey · · Score: 0

    Apparently, this is a response to pressure from FOX News who has always offered free video. Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?

    This question leads directly to my question: Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet? Fascinating insight!

    Don't let TMM win! Karma me up and help save /.!

    --
    __________
    |rip/\/\astur /\/\0nkeywanker
  5. Nail in the Coffin? by Enigma_Man · · Score: 1

    Who's paying for video over the internet? I didn't know that ever was conceived, fertilized, or left the womb.

    -Jesse

    --
    Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    1. Re:Nail in the Coffin? by justforaday · · Score: 1

      CNN's videos were only available if you were a subscriber to the RealOne SuperUberMegaPass. Thank god they've finally ditched that...

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    2. Re:Nail in the Coffin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prn

      - nuff said

    3. Re:Nail in the Coffin? by agilen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I do. I pay to subscribe to MLB.TV, major league baseball's live online video service. Its the cheapest way for me to watch my favorite team, who is outside the area where I live.

      Now, paying for CNN online, when I can easily get it with cable, is a completely different story...not something I would do.

  6. Ive Given Up on Internet Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    everyone wants a different version of some player, and all the players want to own my box.

    1. Re:Ive Given Up on Internet Video by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Informative
      " everyone wants a different version of some player, and all the players want to own my box."

      Use MPlayer , it plays just about everything out there....and does lots more than just play....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  7. No Way by Luigi30 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course it's not the death of paid content. There will always be a low-quality feed for free, but for a few bucks a month you will always be able to upgrade to a higher-quality feed. It's the way of the internet, and it's not going away any time soon.

    --
    503 Sig Unavailable

    The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
  8. It's video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you call yourselves editors? You could at least do the courtesy of [sic]ing it.

  9. Pressure from Fox? by TPIRman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think the OP is correct that other sites' offering of free video likely played somewhat into the decision to go free on CNN.com, but I doubt that was the primary motivation. More compelling is the theory that CNN saw an improving Web ad market and decided that the balance sheet finally worked out in their favor again. (I say "again" because cnn.com video was free once before, way back in the day.) Indeed, a big part of this story is that CNN was able to line up major sponsors for the free-video launch.

    As for pressure from Fox, CNN has been losing in the TV ratings for some time, but the people at CNN (I worked there for a while) take great pride in the fact that the website has held its own and remains one of the most-visited news sources on the Internet. Foxnews.com, while definitely drawing a large audience, isn't even close to CNN.com, so the "pressure" on that front would be more of a keeping-up-with-the-Joneses deal for CNN.com than anything else.

    MSNBC.com, however, is hardly a slouch when it comes to site traffic, and their free-video service has become very popular. If any significant pressure is being placed on CNN.com in the online space, it's from MSNBC rather than Fox.

    1. Re:Pressure from Fox? by GarfBond · · Score: 2, Informative

      It might also be important to note that CNN has switched from Real SuperPass (and hence the RV9 they used to use) to Windows Media 9. To me, this means that they lined up another big sponsor in Microsoft.

      This is a disappointment to me, as it means that I'm not entirely sure I'm always going to be able to watch these videos on a Linux or Mac system; WM10 isn't out on Mac, and obviously never will be for Linux. Real has generally been fairly consistent with clients being available for all 3 big platforms. Mplayer is nice but official clients are even better.

    2. Re:Pressure from Fox? by temojen · · Score: 1

      Why not just MP4? seems pretty simple to just put a link (or better, torrent) to each story, then we can archive it in an open format and never worry about whether our software will work for these historic documents 20 years down the road.

    3. Re:Pressure from Fox? by DietCoke · · Score: 1

      MSNBC's traffic rating is flawed at best. It's the default page on installs, so the first time you open the browser window you are getting hit with their page. That's essentially an unsolicited visit, versus someone deliberately choosing to go to CNN.com or Foxnews.com.

      Defining whether a site is a slouch or not depends heavily on whether the starting points are the same.

    4. Re:Pressure from Fox? by Richthofen80 · · Score: 1

      CNN wins the website viewers because Fox News' website is poorly graphically designed. Its too busy, (even for a news site) , with too much color contrast and unbalanced content positioning.

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    5. Re:Pressure from Fox? by vought · · Score: 1

      THANK YOU for ingnoring the temptation to talk about politics and focussing on the real problem; CNN's new "Free" video seems to have beeen dumped out there as an afterthought. They apparently gave no thought to the Mac or Linux users of the world.

      Fuck them. It's another example of the fading relevance of CNN. Rather than concentrate on real news, they threw their hat in with the sensationalist crowd during the OJ trial and they never looked back.

      I would prefer that they'd used a universally available, free format like MPEG4, but the folks in Atlanta are too busy chasing Fox's coattails to offer any real differentiation. It's too bad the Slashdot headline will never read: "CNN levels the playing field by offering free, universally compatible online video feeds!"

    6. Re:Pressure from Fox? by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      that's MSN not MSNBC.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    7. Re:Pressure from Fox? by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      I just submitted feedback to CNN.com video asking if there was a chance they could support something less obnoxious, like MPEG-4's H.264. Who knows if anyone's listening, but it'll be interesting if they reply.

    8. Re:Pressure from Fox? by DietCoke · · Score: 1

      Correct you are - my mistake...

  10. This isn't about nails, or coffins. Micropayments by Phoenixhunter · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This is about finding the right balance of providing content that people are willing to pay for, and who are willing to go elsewhere for.

    Ultimately this will be about finding the right number, in both how much people will pay, and how many of them will. Once we have a solid online payment solution, whether it is Paypal or Google Wallet, or whatever, that allows us to spend relatively minute amounts (ie $0.10) with ease, this shouldn't be a problem.

  11. Pressure from Competition? Where is the evidence? by ranson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Apparently, this is a response to pressure from FOX News who has always offered free video. Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?"

    Apparently Drinian thinks he knows the inner-workings of CNN? I see no evidence anywhere (press release or otherwise) to support the idea that this was done to alleviate pressure from competing networks. Perhaps CNN struck some advertising deals that would yeild them more money? Perhaps they realized their subscriber base is so small that maintaining subscriptions was more costly than the revenues from them. There are lots of reasons why the video is free now and i don't think a slashdot headline is an appropriate medium to express the submitter's baseless presumption as to why it happened. With that said, lets all be happy that we have more free news :)

  12. ...another question... by venicebeach · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?

    Or, is this a nail in the coffin of paid (news) content on television?

    When you can get it for free (with ads) on demand on the internet will you pay to have it on TV?

  13. is this Microsoft only? by worldthinker · · Score: 2, Informative

    Confirmed. Requires Windows Media Player. blech!

    1. Re:is this Microsoft only? by Mnemia · · Score: 2, Informative

      It works 100% fine for me with the mplayer plugin under Linux (w/ the WMP codecs, of course).

    2. Re:is this Microsoft only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't work for me, but I'm pretty sure it would work if only they would cut the autodetect crap and just link to the video file instead.

      Can you do me a favor and tell me how to manually turn a javascript link like

      javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/showbiz/2005/06 /22/nat.top.movie.quotes.affl','2005/06/29');

      into a url to an actual video file, in case I see something which I'd like to check out someday?

    3. Re:is this Microsoft only? by Mnemia · · Score: 1

      The stupid autodetect thing came up for me too when I first clicked on it, but it gave me the option to ignore the autodetection and proceed anyway. After I did that it set some cookie telling it not to autodetect again, and now it goes straight to the video page when I click on a video link.

      You might try deleting your CNN cookies and trying it again. What browser are you using and does it get to the "brushed metal" looking video page or does it never get past the autodetection thing?

    4. Re:is this Microsoft only? by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      What browser? It doesn't appear to work for me on WinXP SP2 with Opera 8.01, the plugin loads, but no video. I press play, and nothing happens.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    5. Re:is this Microsoft only? by Mnemia · · Score: 1

      I'm using Firefox 1.0.4 on Linux, with mplayer 1.0_pre6. I'm not spoofing the user agent either, so if you're reporting your browser as IE maybe that's the problem.

      I have no recent experience with Opera, so I can't be of help there. I wish these sites would just stop with the rats' nest of Javascript on every video site and just post a damn link to the video though. I can't imagine who that kind of site design benefits.

    6. Re:is this Microsoft only? by kennyz · · Score: 1
      I have been able to view videos on Linux using Xine by taking the video path (eg. "/video/showbiz/2005/06/22/nat.top.movie.quotes.af fl"), prepending "http://www.cnn.com", and appending "/video.ws.asx".

      For example:

      bash$ xine http://www.cnn.com/video/showbiz/2005/06/22/nat.to p.movie.quotes.affl/video.ws.asx

      Strangely, this does not work with MPlayer. When I execute the same command line, but substitute "mplayer" in place of "xine", I get an error stating that "avisynth.dll" cannot be loaded. This error is misleading, because avisynth.dll is certainly not necessary in order to play these video files. The file avisynth.dll does not exist anywhere on my WinXP system, but the video still play fine. In addition, Xine is playing it fine without that DLL.

    7. Re:is this Microsoft only? by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I know the Opera can play video, but really, why do we want plugins for streaming video anyway? The ads for the video are in the video stream, so wouldn't it be far easier to have a link that pops up media player or real player or whatever, and that connects to the server, plays the ad and then the content and boom.

      So you have ONE program to target rather than 2 or 3 or more browsers js implementations, plus the differences in their plugin implementations etc? Even for the sites it would seem simpler.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
  14. Is this... by eviltypeguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is this another article that wants to speak to me like I'm a contestant on Jeopardy? Seriously, the "Is this..." question at the end of "news" "articles" on Slashdot is starting to get old real fast. I'm not on a gameshow blast it!

    1. Re:Is this... by ilyaaohell · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is as much a news-gathering website as it is a discussion website. I'd say a lot more emphasis is actually placed on discussions, though. News submissions therefore serve the purpose of giving links to places with the "full" story on a particular issue AS WELL AS generating discussions for said story. That's the reason the articles ask us readers to discuss the issues involved. If you just want tech/geek news without any conversation, you might want to look into The Register.

      --
      UNIX: A computer user is defined as a programmer. WINDOWS: A computer user is defined as a consumer.
  15. Re:Fuck Fox News! by cakestick · · Score: 1

    Fuck them and the bigoted suits who run it!

    You may be anonymous, but you aren't a coward!

    --
    I'm not here. This isn't happening.
  16. Will you please learn to spell friggin' "its"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    For heaven's sake?

  17. CNN by kevin_conaway · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Now I can see round the clock coverage of the latest missing girl / boy and who won the latest Fox reality TV show. Seriously, how come they don't report NEWS anymore? All their front page head lines are just BS.

    1. Re:CNN by Iriel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it's mostly because the pop-American trend for TV is getting way too drama based. Every minute, the 'news' is telling you:

      "Your neighborhood is no longer safe. Is the government cheating you out of hard earned money? (Insert new crash diet) is sweeping the nation with reports of (success | hospitalization). More breaking coverage on celebrities that you'll never meet."

      They realized that they don't need content anymore as long as watching becomes an experience comparable to a rollercoaster or new horror/suspense film. And now it can be delivered in high quality video. Pretty soon, news video pages will be virtual copies of iFilm.com :)

      --
      Perfecting Discordia
      www.stevenvansickle.com
    2. Re:CNN by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Is the government cheating you out of hard earned money? "

      I think this is pretty much a given...but, aside from that...I agree pretty much with you. I think one of the problems is, the average American citizen has the attention span of a gnat....and have to have tiny real news sound bites mixed in with all the fluff to get ANY comprehension in their brains.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:CNN by Tax+Boy · · Score: 1

      The Death Knell of CNN came way back in 2001 when they hired that actress from Babylon 5 to be an anchor on Headline News. It just hasn't been the same since.

    4. Re:CNN by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

      If you can, watch CNN International. Much better, actual news and no Crossfire. And you get to hear funny accents.

  18. Wasn't it "free" before? by DJ+Rubbie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I recall correctly, a while ago (3 years ago or so) CNN offered videos for free to the public before they added in a paid to view pass system.

    --
    Please direct all bug reports to /dev/null
    1. Re:Wasn't it "free" before? by b1t+r0t · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall this too. Not that I ever really cared to watch them in the first place.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    2. Re:Wasn't it "free" before? by ndege · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are correct. CNN previously did offer "free" (with a small Ad at the beginning of the video stream) for free....after ad-based support was shown to be unprofitable, they yanked the "free" streams.

      --
      Sig Return: 204 No Content
    3. Re:Wasn't it "free" before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an outsider, I don't know the motivation.

      My guess is that their attempt at capitalizing on a subscription-only approach was probably unprofitable, and have figured out a way of making a profit by offering it for free again: whether by charging advertisers per viewer or offering a better quality for a fee - haven't looked yet.

      Honestly, I forgot about the videofeed service. By re-introducing the service for free, they got my attention again. I used it a couple of times but then stopped but I think I'll try it out again only because I know it's available. If it works, good for everybody.

    4. Re:Wasn't it "free" before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way, you all can thank AOL for providing the streaming video. Yes that's right, AOL.

    5. Re:Wasn't it "free" before? by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      It was free until

      ...buffering...

      it became

      ...buffering...

      part

      ...buffering...

      of the Real

      ...buffering...

      Player Gold Pass system

      --
      Get your Unix fortune now!
    6. Re:Wasn't it "free" before? by cashman73 · · Score: 1
      Personally, I can't see how they were profitable with their paid access video system?! I don't think the average joe is all that news crazy that they've got to pay to get news clips of the 90% useless stories CNN shows anyway. Most people, unless they're very rich and don't give a crap, are going to just wait til they get home and watch CNN on cable.



      Plus, most people weren't into the video as much because, back in the day, broadband wasn't as prevalent. As a result, advertisers were less likely to dump money into something that people weren't watching. Now that broadband is more or less mainstream, and the critical mass is there, hungry for high bandwidth applications, the advertising dollars show up. Hmm, sounds like a modern day example of the law of supply and demand, eh? ;-)

  19. Mod parent +5 funny :-) by tekiegreg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content?

    HAH! I subscribe to 3 paid sites. Granted I'm a part-time investor, I find thestreet.com and wsj online to be quite handy. Also consumerreports.org for a small fee keeps me tuned to what is good out there and what is a scam.

    Sure I can try and pirate the content out there, but that would require some searching and a guilty feeling for making/saving money at others expense and all these paid sites are very good in and of themselves. So paid content isn't going away any time soon.

    Would I pay for CNN though? Something that I can easily find on TV? Probably not, but again by that logic, how many people watch CNN (a PAID cable channel) and still go out and pay the $0.35 for the Los Angeles Times? People will pay for what they perceive as good content, online or wherever.

    --
    ...in bed
  20. Ya Gotta Serve Somebody by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    You always have to pay. Maybe the cost is in accepting unfair/unbalanced video from Fox. Maybe the cost is in accepting CNN's more subtly tuned, yet just as programmed, corporate agenda. But at least we can choose from multiple video sources now, without needing a profit to justify paid consumption. Now, the video aggregator who can correlate the videos from these reportedly "fair/balanced" and "liberal" news corporations with each other, and with Republican Party PR, will really have something worth watching.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  21. Free CNN Video - Worth Every Cent by RagingChipmunk · · Score: 1

    If I wanted to see politically sanitized 'news' reporting I'd turn to CNN first. If I want to see politically biased reporting it would be Fox. So, instead I just surf the worlds news sites and form my own opinions.

    --
    The only PT Boat Journal on the web: http://www.PT171.org
  22. Not only FOX, but MSNBC too by Harry+Balls · · Score: 1

    MSNBC has offered free video for a long time.
    Preceded by a short commercial, granted, but free.
    They also had a live video stream when the verdict in the Michael Jackson trial was announced.

    --
    Dedicated Linux servers (root access) $45 p.M.
  23. nail in the coffin of... by jdunlevy · · Score: 0, Redundant
    Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?
    Why not ask whether it's another nail in the coffin of (non-internet) television?
    1. Re:nail in the coffin of... by dosboss · · Score: 1

      It's another nail in the coffin of CNN. They are struggling to get back viewer share after the Fox News blitz.

      It is entertaining to see the news networks battling each other. It's much more fun than the news they're reporting.

  24. Thank GOD by dgos78 · · Score: 0

    it isn't that crappy Real media.

    --
    SYS 64738
  25. Naked news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny


    Naked news is still paid service. Yes people pay for that.

    1. Re:Naked news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Similar to CNN, Naked News also used to be free (for small resolutions), but then they switched to an all-pay model too.
      (I seem to recall they did this right about the time I switched from dialup to broadband...bastards! :-)

      Hopefully Naked News will also see the error of their ways and switch to a free service now also.

  26. I saw the free video the other day by amichalo · · Score: 1

    I saw a story about Tom Cruise having watter squirted on him by some "journalnist" (but we better protect Bloggers from prosecution when they go public with trade secrets they knew were protected by NDA).

    I just though the video was so bad, they knew no one would pay for it.

    Still, I didn't watch it because it required Windows Media Player - which I refuse to install.

    --
    I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
  27. Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Want to know the difference between CNN and Slashdot? CNN reports news, and Slashdot is gay

    eat me fags

  28. No clue what you're talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...look, the precise complaints against Fox are that they leak in opinion to their so called "hard news" - their main anchor is pretty obvious in his political affiliation, the balance of pundits and opinions is also pretty obvious, and the few suposed "liberals" present (Alan Colmes) are essentially straw men. Compound this with their sensationalistic aspect (really scarier than any partisan bickering), and you'll see why so many people criticize Fox News.

    I'm sorry, but your post amounts to little more than FUD.

    1. Re:No clue what you're talking about... by donutz · · Score: 1

      .look, the precise complaints against Fox are that they leak in opinion to their so called "hard news" - their main anchor is pretty obvious in his political affiliation, the balance of pundits and opinions is also pretty obvious

      Wouldn't you prefer that the biases of their anchors and the rest ARE obvious? It's easier for you to weigh what they're saying, and which stories they choose to cover, and which they ignore...if you know which way their political allegiance slants, and how far.

    2. Re:No clue what you're talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...look, the precise complaints against Fox are that they leak in opinion to their so called "hard news"

      Boy it's a good thing other news programs don't do that...oh wait, they do they're just not honest about their opinions.

    3. Re:No clue what you're talking about... by seriesrover · · Score: 1
      I quite agree. Coming from the UK (but now in the US) I consistently hear how "unbiased" the BBC is. The problem is that EVERY organization outlet is biased in one form. Sure the BBC doesn't have fancy glossy graphics etc. but they are VERY biased.

      People too easily confuse presentation style with bias. 10 years ago the BBC was exceptionally good but these days its reporting and twisting of the facts is downright atrocious.

    4. Re:No clue what you're talking about... by dchallender · · Score: 1

      The BBC has recently altered very badly, with rare exceptions, much of its news coverage is just government mouthpiece level. Note, for US citizens you may think the UK goverment is "liberal" but to anyone in the UK who may fit the "liberal" description it perceived as right wing. It should be noted that those at the top have far more of an effect on bias than individual presenters, journalists. Look at the pattern with R Murdoch various media interests - they all show a distinct (in UK eyes) right wing bias. Which is why non mainstream news information is so useful, be it blogs (e.g. those with an interest in the Iraq conflict will recognise "Riverbend") to individuals / small groups acting as independent journalists but via collating portals that allow them to reach a large audience (e.g. indymedia about the only way to get uncensored footage of police violence / provocation in anti government protests). Accept all reports have a bias, be aware of the bias, read / see a few different reporte of the same situation and then you are in a better position to make your own conclusions.
      --
      Dave
      Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey

  29. Not a nail in the coffin of paid, valuable content by jordandeamattson · · Score: 1

    All of those hailing this as another nail in the coffin of paid content on the Internet should notice that what you paid for on CNN was content that was free on my cable channel.

    This is clearly a broken business model. Why in their right mind would pay for what they can get for free.

    On the other hand, I am more than willing to pay for content which is valuable, unique, and not available for free anywhere else.

    For example, I (and many others) have a subscription to the discussion boards at The Motley Fool. It is well worth it.

    Yours,

    Jordan

  30. Re:OT- Stop the shitty manual emoticon sig please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, you can't talk to TPM like that, he's special. Best damn Chinese karma-whore I ever saw!

  31. Well.... by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The Democrats need to get there propaganda out there too.

    --
    There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    1. Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right, since every pundit on cnn is a liberal ...or maybe, you just never watch the damn channel to find out that cnn is a moderate, corporation-loving news feed rather than the Republican gang bang called Fox news.

    2. Re:Well.... by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

      I think they both(all) suck. so what does that mean?

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
  32. Re:Fuck Fox News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You havne't watched CNN v.s. the Christians, have you?

  33. The Idiot Window.... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I saw the link. I thought it was trick and didn't click. Why watch talking heads when you can read the text instead. Reading is the best thing for a Democracy.

  34. As you kidding by Approaching.sanity · · Score: 1

    Bittorrent!

    --
    RTFA again for the best results.
  35. So what? by tomstdenis · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I still won't watch it.

    You know why?

    "This video has been optimized for windows media player 9."

    Fuck that, release a URL to a .mpg or an AVI using MPEG1 and MAYBE I'd consider watching it.

    Short of that I'll just read news.google.com and watch CNN [among others] when I get home.

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  36. Re:Not a nail in the coffin of paid, valuable cont by Tiresias_Mons · · Score: 1

    "This is clearly a broken business model. Why in their right mind would pay for what they can get for free."

    Well semantics here, but you're not getting it for free if you are paying for your cable.

    Why yes, I am a nitpicky bastard. =p

    For the record, no, you should not have to pay again for content that you already paying for somewhere else.

    --
    "But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" - Dennis Miller
  37. Reply to article question - and more. by Wanderer1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?"

    No.

    "Supply and Demand"

    Clearly, at some juncture, things will evolve past the point where "free as in beer" is the norm, but as long as one of your competitors offers the same service for free, unless you have something people are willing to pay for, you're cannot easily compete with the guy down the street offering an open keg tap.

    So far, I've paid for a Salon subscription (no longer,) and a Slashdot subscription (awhile back) because I wanted to support both enterprises. I also tend to pay PBS and a small radio station (WCPE) which provide material I enjoy with good quality or ideals that I wish to further in the world.

    You may remember, CNN and Fox News get their revenue on the television by selling advertisements. Why would online be any different?

    What you really should be asking yourself is: Is the future of computer network media *sales* in the hands of the podcaster? And if so, will micropayments finally succeed? Visa, Mastercard, Amex? Are you listening? And, oh, by the way, have you had enough ID theft to start using those smart-chip equipped cards yet? I am tired of waiting!

    W

    1. Re:Reply to article question - and more. by ultramk · · Score: 1

      You may remember, CNN and Fox News get their revenue on the television by selling advertisements.

      Yes, and no. They also get a goodly percentage of their income from the cable or satellite providers who carry their channels. You pay for that in the form of your cable or satellite monthly bill.

      m-

      --
      You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
  38. Re:FOX and CNN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The problem there is that whenever I ask people like you for some exact sources of "better" news, it's either other sites with just as much bias (and generally the "Amerikkka is the root of all Evil for the past billion years!!!!" type), or those creepy, font-size:2px political manifestos splattered about the Web thanks to Microsoft FrontPage.

    I don't think there *is* a non-biased news source.

    But, hey, I have learned that the United States caused the Tunguska event, and George Bush personally caused the Black Plague.

  39. And pray tell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    What exactly does your long-winded whine have to do with the topic in question?

    Mark parent Offtopic. Parent is a far right whiner (probably evangelical) trying to take every opportunity to "evangelize" us with his views at every opportunity. Look at his posting history/website for further evidence.

    PS: Not a troll. I have nothing against anybody of any faith/political bias/etc, so long as they don't try to dump their views and so called "values" on others.

    1. Re:And pray tell... by daveschroeder · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I explained exactly what it had to do with the topic in question, which is why CNN is so far behind FOX News in ratings, and is trying to do something about it, which then responds to the

      Also, if you think I or FOX News is "far right", you have no fucking clue what "far right" is. Further, I am not an "evangelical". And lastly, I'm not sure what on my web site you find objectionable or "evidence" that I'm an "evangelical". In fact, there is nothing related with any religion or evangelism anywhere on my website.

      Also, what in the living FUCK does any of my post have to do with "values"?

      I await what is sure to be a stunningly cogent reply.

    2. Re:And pray tell... by donutz · · Score: 1

      I hope you're not holding your breath for the cogent reply from that guy.

      I think the most interesting (well, interesting and stands out enough for me to catch it while skimming through) is Figure 2. It shows the average US voter for two date ranges (1975-1994 and 1994-1999), compared to various media outlets and legislators. All but two are more liberal than the average voter. Plus the average voter has gotten more conservative over time.

      Is the media turning voters conservative?? :)

    3. Re:And pray tell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Is this what you mean by an exact explanation to the topic in question? The relevant excerpt from your original post follows:

      "And finally, for those who think this is off-topic: just look at the astounding number of posts denigrating to FOX News sure to be found in this article, many modded to +5."

      From your own admission, your comment is intended to deter/pacify (however you want to put it) would be posters who you think would want to post anything anti-Fox. Now, a worthy rebut to an already posted off-topic comment can probably be excused from negative moderation. However, I don't see how a long-whinding comment, entirely tangential to the original article, claiming to be on-topic because it is intended to ward off opinions which the author thinks might be posted in the future is somehow worthy of positive moderation.

      Just because the author seems to think that it's somehow "on-topic" because of strawman arguments doesn't necessarily make it so.

      PS: abusive language in parent intentionally ignored to keep conversation civil and on-topic (as much as it can be under the circumstances).

    4. Re:And pray tell... by stonedown · · Score: 1

      It makes me very angry when rightwingers like you accuse the American media of being liberal, when the entire national media almost without exception was cheerleading the Iraq War from the very beginning.

      So, it wasn't enough for you to have the media to completely side with the dumbass rightwing invasion plan ("It's like Vietnam, but better!"), but you have to pop around every now and then and rub salt in the wound by telling us, "We never get everything *our* way. Boohooo!! How come you liberals always get everything *your* way? Waaaahhhh!!"

      Cry me a river. By the way, aren't you supposed to be in Iraq, helping with the war effort?

      If the media had a liberal bias, Bush would have been impeached by now for high crimes.

      By the way, stop whining about how you're going to be troll-rated. Grow up.

    5. Re:And pray tell... by stonedown · · Score: 1

      "Plus the average voter has gotten more conservative over time."

      I dispute this. Studies show that the nation is becoming less religious and more tolerant of diversity as time goes by. Lynching of blacks is less and less common. Acceptance of gays is nearly mainstream, not quite there yet in many parts of the country.

      Recently, distrust of big business is in resurgence after a series of blockbuster corporate scandals.

      Now, support for Congress and the president are at an all-time low. This translates to disgust with the Republican Party. Bush's disapproval rating is hovering around 52%, and polls show that a majority of Americans believe that Bush is not focusing on what's important to them.

  40. american propaganda machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well who cares anyway... both of those are little more than the american gouvernement's propaganda tool, you get more content on american politics on international stations like the BBC or the canadian broadcasting corporation's little coverage of american news... too bad everyone in the world is paying with their health and security because of the "choices" made by americans...

  41. This is great! by Dante+Shamest · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now I wish those p0rn sites will take notice of this too.

  42. OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fox News murderated teh internets! Bush's fault!

  43. more video? but I just watched fox! maybe tomorrow by urbieta · · Score: 1

    I am just done watching the news at FOX and I get this news?

    Maybe Ill watch CNN tomorrow, who knows which has the best quality ;)

    Let them slam their ads at a side! no problem with me ;)

    btw thw scandals at the UN are fun ;)

  44. Real media content by Therlin · · Score: 1

    I thought you had to have a real guide pass (or whatever it's called this week) to access the video.

    I'm guessing that this change also has to do to the lack of revenue coming from that venture. Which would confirm the fact that Real is having problems attracting people to pay for their premium content.

    1. Re:Real media content by absinthminded64 · · Score: 1

      OK - I decided one day to pay for video at CNN. I did not realize at the time that it was Real Media ONLY. And I didn't know of any alternatives. I called some support number shortly after and cancelled the transaction for the sole reason of their player being what it is.

  45. False Dichotomy by Moiche · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Not to be too pedantic, but framing the discussion in terms of paid content/no paid content offers two options, neither of which is accurate. "Nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet"? Who is the poster kidding? So CNN is streaming free video. So what. NYTimes, which has long offered its daily paper free after registration (insert slashdot/NYTimes registration meta humor here), is going to start charging for its OP-ed columns, and a few other tasty morsels. Does that mean that we can expect (or have we already seen) a news item on slashdot referring to a "nail in the coffin of free content on the internet" -- because NYT is starting to charge for content?

    I mean . . . it's not that hard. Intarweb is new tech, in that society had really integrated phones until about half a century after their invention, and we are still within three decades of the DARPA network. The market hasn't really figured out what works paid and unpaid on the internet -- hence the juicy webcomic discussion/controversy over whether or not micropayments work. But we can count on the fact that there will always be some stuff that is paid content (because the cost of development and provision far exceeds the potential income derived from advertising or marketing while providing the content free) and some stuff that is free. Things like the CNN streaming of live video is just the market settling -- and I guarantee that the streaming video will incorporate advertisements, so by some definitions, it's not exactly free. Seeing anything in the CNN decision regarding the larger issue of charging for content on the internet seems to me like sophomoric thinking -- unless I'm missing something?

    Regards,

    Moiche

  46. Re:Fuck Fox News! by bemenaker · · Score: 1

    If fox news is how you get your view of the world, I feel really sorry for you.

  47. No Way-Copying and Distribution wants to be free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quote: "Your 'higher-quality' video wants to be free."

    "It's the way of the internet, and it's not going away any time soon."

    It's the "moral relativism" that's the problem.

  48. They only offer content via WMP. 8( by dangermen · · Score: 1

    They only offer content via WMP. 8(

  49. BBC anyone? by g-san · · Score: 1

    I was watching the BBC online for free back in 1999.

    And this is really odd. Public broadcasting is being phased out and we get an article about CNN offering it's video for free. We need to get our priorities straight before someone starts straightening them out for us.

    1. Re:BBC anyone? by minus_273 · · Score: 0

      CNN had free video too. I think what happened was people have faster computers and more bandwidth now so they can send ads over with the video without consuming too much time/bandwidth. It is like wwatching a TV show, you see the ad that pays for the show.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
  50. Re:OT- Stop the shitty manual emoticon sig please by JPelorat · · Score: 1

    SIG RUSH!! kekekekekekekekekeke

    --
    Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
  51. Are you kidding? by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 1

    "Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?" - this is a joke, right? I mean, you do understand that this has no bearing on reality?

  52. Depends by dankasfuk · · Score: 0

    Personally, I don't see the point of paying for something like CNN. Paid content should be original enough to warrant the cost. Paying for news feed(to me)seems a waste of money. News is news, and it is possible to view it on any number of countless other sites, sans video. However, some content I would be willing to pay for. Channels such as TLC and Discovery have shows I wouldn't mind paying a subscriber fee in order to view at my lesiure. For example, I would much rather pay for unlimited access to Modern Marvels or Mythbuster than I would to buy DVDs at 29.95 a pop.

    --
    Ban Engadget - moderators censor comments!
  53. Now this is news! by stinkyweezelteets · · Score: 1

    Too bad what's provided on those sites isn't.

  54. Re:Well.... there not using CNN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sick of all mainstream network news. It's all crap and none of it is REAL news? Downing street minutes anyone? Google news is truely non-bias and you can find any "angle" you want. But since when did news have to "fit" your idology anyway. Stop watching that crap!

  55. why buy the cow twice? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

    Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?

    No, this is another nail in the coffin of the idea that people will pay for content on the internet that they can get for free* from other distribution channels.

    (* I realize cable television isn't actually "free", but with so many advertising-subsidized channels to choose from, the cost of CNN's programming alone is too cheap to meter.)

  56. Pointless move by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 1

    IMHO.. see the thing is, websites like CNN/Fox News/etc try to make it impossible for the viewer to save the video files to disk. They never provide "right click link to save video file" or whatever. So what they offer is a low-bw feed for free... If I upgrade to the premium package and pay $5 month, I still only get one time viewing.. it's too restrictive.

    Now if I could save & share those high bw feeds over the internet, I might be interested in a subscription. Until then, there doesn't seem to be any value in it, because i can just turn on my tv and get a higher quality viewing.

    1. Re:Pointless move by Professr3 · · Score: 0

      HiDownload captures video/audio streams. With a little work, you could save any CNN video you wanted.

  57. Re:Not a nail in the coffin of paid, valuable cont by Bimo_Dude · · Score: 1
    CNN was content that was free on my cable channel.

    ... and how much do you pay each month for basic cable?
    Most of the content on their site/channel is not worth my time or money anyway, so I just use various web sites (US domestic and international) in an attempt to get a better rounded view of the news, and I don't have to pay for it anyway.

    --
    "Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
  58. Nail in the coffin by Dougthebug · · Score: 1

    In other news...

    As paid content continues to rise in popularity, slashdot can now put the final nail in the coffin of the 'nail in the coffin' story punchline.

  59. Re:Not a nail in the coffin of paid, valuable cont by jordandeamattson · · Score: 1

    Yes, you are right. I am paying for cable. But as you note, I am paying for it somewhere else and paying such a low price for the value received, that it seems like "free" to me.

  60. Probably not by suitepotato · · Score: 1

    Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?

    As long as Danni's Hard Drive is around, I'd say not.

    Did you want to qualify that as "paid news content"? Since the free stuff is BS I'd pay to get them to just print the facts sans op-ed slanted writing.

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  61. Free content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are forced to look at ad's before you watch the video or while you are watching, I wouldn't call it free.

  62. Poll - TripMaster_Monkey is a: by TripMaster_Monky · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    a. Karma Whore
    b. Valuable Contributor

    --
    __________
    |rip/\/\aster /\/\onky
    1. Re:Poll - TripMaster_Monkey is a: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Ignore these guys, Trip. They just want to tick you off. I'll wager that all the votes for #1 were probably made by the parent himself. In fact, all of these trolls are probably the same person who seems to be absolutely obsessed with you. They should join the GNAA - they are clearly gay in their obsession and mentally ill as all other members for pursuing you in such a sick way.

      --Your conscience

  63. Unfortunately no by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 1

    Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?"

    No, as many nails as we pound into the "paid content" coffin, the ones we really want... (cough)PORN(cough)... will never be free.

    --
    -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
  64. WiMP by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 1

    It only supports WiMP. I'll stick to cbsnews.com, since their support of RealPlayer allows for Linux viewers.

  65. Go lower! by artemis67 · · Score: 1

    $0.10 is still too expensive. A penny per article is about right, and maybe a penny per second of video.

    No one seems to have this paid content thing figured out. I see online newspapers selling old articles for anywhere from $1.50 to $5.00... come on, it's not like there's some little old lady in the archive vault waiting for your request, the content is just being pulled from a database.

    For $5.00, I'll just find a free source for the same news. For a penny... feh, why bother, just pay the penny and be done with it.

  66. Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent down. Troll, Flamebait, or Offtopic.

  67. Re:Not a nail in the coffin of paid, valuable cont by everphilski · · Score: 1

    Basic cable is free where I live. If it wasnt, $12.99 a month for 72 channels... $0.19 a month per channel hardly seems worth fretting over. Except HGTV. I want a refund.

    -everphilski-

  68. Micropayments have problems by Uruk · · Score: 1

    Let's assume for a moment that no service provider would ever charge less than an atomic unit of currency for a service. ($0.01/transaction). This is necessary because it's fine to aggregate 30,000 units of 0.33 pennies with one client, but you can't actually withdraw that amount from a single client.

    Now let's assume you want to pay $0.10. You just paid a 10% service fee, substantially higher than any current credit card transaction fee (typically 2-3%). The principle is this: as the total dollar value of the transaction decreases, the total percentage contribution of the fee skyrockets. Get down to a nickel, and you're paying 20% service fee.

    So what? It's just a penny, right? Well actually the only way micropayments work for anybody is on volume, so it's not just a penny. It's 500,000 pennies, all charged at 10-20% service fees.

    All this is even assuming someone could do it for as little as $0.01. No one has firmly established on a large scale that people want to pay these amounts, and no one has established that anyone wants to receive these amounts in large volume. How is this thing going to work?

    Micropayments sound like a racket for the people processing the transactions, and a total accounting nightmare for people accepting them. Do you want to have an accounting department whose job it is to track down mistaken payments or processing errors on $0.25?

    --
    -- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
    1. Re:Micropayments have problems by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      Google wallet will be supporting payments down to the scale of 1/10 cent. The current plan realizes this will be best for the rest of us with respect to collecting money on personal websites, etc.

      As far as atomic fee values. No. Users will simply see the total value collected to the account. The fee will be accessed against this total value. The fees will be competitive, read: better than paypal in most popular cases. It is possible that your account will have a fractional-cent balance, but clearly withdraws will be in whole-cent ammounts.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

  69. Amongst the changes.. by OlivierB · · Score: 1

    They have now changed from Real technologies to Windows Media.

    This means no more "rght-click" & play in separte media player.

    Windows media sucks on Macs (no aliasing) and you have to keep it in a browser window.

    Does anybody know what the direct links to the videos are? I would like to bookmark "Now in the News"

    --
    Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
  70. Why? by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

    Because it's in disagreement with you?

    I posted a Newsweek story that speaks EXACTLY to CNN's response to FOX News, trying to reinvent itself as a news source, and then posted a UCLA study that mechanically attempts to discover the centrism of various hard news content from the major networks, websites, and printed media.

    I then make some observations to the effect that lambasting FOX News' news content for the content of its EDITORIAL shows would be the same as attacking the New York Times' news content for the content if its Op-Ed page.

    But don't worry, it will get modded down to -1, just like you want it to.

    Slashdot: where we consider all views, as long as they're in agreement with our own.

    1. Re:Why? by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Slashdot: where we consider all views, as long as they're in agreement with our own.

      Actually, that describes a good portion of the American Left. You know, the ones that are so open minded that they shout down any conservative voice at a war protest. The Troll rating that this post is sure to get will just prove my point.

    2. Re:Why? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      the ones that are so open minded that they shout down any conservative voice at a war protest.

      Funny, sounds like a good portion of the American Right.

      Can't we all just agree to slit each other's throats in the night?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  71. CNN.com is a better website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not forget that one of the reasons CNN.com beats FoxNews.com is because CNN is a better website. It is laid out better, it has easier to navigate categories. The colour scheme is less offensive on the eyes, and it has been around longer (i.e. bookmark habits).

    This of course, is not a comment on one sites news. Given the current state of Slashdot, I am sure there are plenty of Anti-Fox posts getting modded as Insightful as we type.

    But I prefer CNN.com because it is a readable website.

    1. Re:CNN.com is a better website by Bodysurf · · Score: 1

      "Do not forget that one of the reasons CNN.com beats FoxNews.com is because CNN is a better website. It is laid out better, it has easier to navigate categories. The colour scheme is less offensive on the eyes, and it has been around longer (i.e. bookmark habits). This of course, is not a comment on one sites news. Given the current state of Slashdot, I am sure there are plenty of Anti-Fox posts getting modded as Insightful as we type. But I prefer CNN.com because it is a readable website."

      This is definitely true.

      I used to watch CNN many years ago (1st Gulf War era), but switched to FoxNews in 2000 I believe.

      Almost everything about FoxNews is "better" except their webpage. CNN.COM is much easier to navigage and aesthetically pleasing than FoxNews.COM.

  72. Not a nail in that coffin... by davidwr · · Score: 1

    But rather a nail in the coffin of paid undifferentiated content on the Internet.

    Where there is competition, once one provider goes free, the other providers better follow or add so much value that they are worth paying for.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  73. The golden nail by Rhoon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet

    Until you hammer down the one labeled RIAA, does it really matter?

    --
    "If all the world's a stage, I want to operate the trap door." - Paul Beatty
  74. Not again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't we have editors that, you know, actually EDIT? I know people will think I'm just being a nitpicker, but dammit, this crap looks ignorant:

    It seems that CNN is now offering it's video FREE

    What the hell does "It seems that CNN is now offering it is video FREE" mean?

    You don't put a damn apostrophe in the possessive form of "it." Most of us learned that in 4th grade. Will people PLEASE stop doing this?

    1. Re:Not again... by David_Bloom · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Ooooooh...
      If you want to be possessive,
      It's just I-T-S!
      Butifyouwantittobeacontraction
      It's I-E-apostrophe-S!

      ...scallawag!

      --

      Karma: Excellent (fuck, even in the future moderation doesn't work!)
  75. 2 incompatable visions of the information age by argoff · · Score: 1

    Across the information and media industries, there exists two incompatable visions of the future of the infirmation age. One relies on the unrestricted uninhibited free flow of information, the other relies on every piece of information and media being managed and controlled and treated like physical property.

    One thing many people do not understand: these two visions are not just different, they are incompatable! for one to succedede the other must fail hands down! There can be no middle ground. IMHO, that is why copyrights and software patents must fail, and must fail soon.

  76. Why isn't the broadcast streamed? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

    Instead of just 'stories' why don't they just stream the same CNN I can get on my TV? Complete with ads? In fact, they could stream all the CNN variants - CNN, Headline News, the CNN I see in Europe etc.

  77. When no-one buys it, your product value drops to 0 by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Did anyone actually pay for their content before? The only people i could see actually paying for news footage are other news agencies - as a user when i've clicked on videos on CNN before and found some stupid message to subscribe i just go to another site - its their loss of possible advertising revenue. Either way i still don't think most commercial news is a good idea, thats what leads to dumbing down of the masses and bias, although I respect Fox, CNN etc because they are a business and thats what they do to make money. In fact this is a perfect example of capitalism: the masses are getting what they want, everyone is happy. I just want the facts, presented by someone who is actually a journalist (not a model or 'tv personality') and has the integrity to cover all sides (no matter who it might piss off) and leave their own opinion at the door. I'd pay for that.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  78. Re:Fuck Fox News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, I think s/he's just horny.

  79. Re:Not a nail in the coffin of paid, valuable cont by Politburo · · Score: 1

    All of those hailing this as another nail in the coffin of paid content on the Internet should notice that what you paid for on CNN was content that was free on my cable channel.

    Please then, enlighten us! Teach us know the secret of (legal) free cable!

  80. I'm just a fish in a school... by Aeron65432 · · Score: 1

    I can't say I'm terribly surprised. I know I personally changed my homepage to FoxNews from CNN because they both had interesting videos, but I couldn't watch CNN's. (Oh yeah, and I moved cause I didn't feel like downloading realplayer for CNN)

  81. How to play CNN video on Linux by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's a bit convoluted, but here's how to play these videos on Linux without having to delve into HTML and JS, and without having to use an embedded video plugin (lots of which seem to lock up and crash frequently):

    - Install the GreaseMonkey extension to Firefox: http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/
    - Install the Unembed script for GreaseMonkey: http://dunck.us/collab/GreaseMonkeyUserScripts
    - Install xine and the Windows codecs: http://cambuca.ldhs.cetuc.puc-rio.br/xine/
    - Go to http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html in Firefox (the links on each story don't work, they check to see if WMP9 is installed, and then they fail)
    - Click on the story you want.
    - Right-click on the title above the embedded video (it's the name of the video in blue text, and it's in the same frame as the embedded video). Select "This Frame->Show only this frame" from the context menu.
    - There should now be a link next to the video that says "[download]".
    - Shift-click on the "[download]" link to open it in a new tab (right-click doesn't work, so you can't copy the link destination).
    - Switch to the new tab, and press Ctrl-L Ctrl-C to copy the URL.
    - Open a terminal, and type "xine " then Ctrl-Shift-V to paste the URL. Press enter and the movie should play!

    Phew!

    1. Re:How to play CNN video on Linux by zanderredux · · Score: 1
      Try this!

      While the page is loading, press: Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start.

      Works best if you're on a 56k connection. If you're on DSL or faster, try to memorize the trick beforehand so you can input it quickly!

    2. Re:How to play CNN video on Linux by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      It's a bit convoluted, but here's how to play these videos on Linux without having to delve into HTML and JS, and without having to use an embedded video plugin (lots of which seem to lock up and crash frequently):

      - Install the GreaseMonkey extension to Firefox: http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/
      - Install the Unembed script for GreaseMonkey: http://dunck.us/collab/GreaseMonkeyUserScripts
      - Install xine and the Windows codecs: http://cambuca.ldhs.cetuc.puc-rio.br/xine/
      - Go to http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html in Firefox (the links on each story don't work, they check to see if WMP9 is installed, and then they fail)
      - Click on the story you want.
      - Right-click on the title above the embedded video (it's the name of the video in blue text, and it's in the same frame as the embedded video). Select "This Frame->Show only this frame" from the context menu.
      - There should now be a link next to the video that says "[download]".
      - Shift-click on the "[download]" link to open it in a new tab (right-click doesn't work, so you can't copy the link destination).
      - Switch to the new tab, and press Ctrl-L Ctrl-C to copy the URL.
      - Open a terminal, and type "xine " then Ctrl-Shift-V to paste the URL. Press enter and the movie should play!

      Phew!

      Granted, I assume that this is informative and accurate, but for God's sake, its 2005. Aside from Microsoft's DRM junk in WMV9 formats, is it still that difficult to view a movie from the web?

      The first time I viewed an MPEG that I got off the internet was something like 1994, and the directions were something like 1) download MPEG from FTP site and 2) start whatever Sun called their media player at the time and open the file in it.

    3. Re:How to play CNN video on Linux by mikespice · · Score: 1

      Why not have it just play embedded in firefox just like the windows users get? A much easier way is to install mplayerplug-in and make sure you have avisynth.dll. Then it will play embedded just like it does for windows users.

      To install mplayerplug-in, the easiest way is to use `yum install mplayerplug-in` (if you have yum installed). As for avisynth.dll, just go to http://www.avisynth.org/ and downloaded the zip file. Unzip it and put the .dll in /usr/lib/win32/ or /usr/lib/codecs/.

      That is all!

    4. Re:How to play CNN video on Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the plugin crashes frequently.

  82. CNN by zimus · · Score: 1

    Anything I read or see on CNN I treat like something from the National Enquirer - I think "Wow! What if that were actually true?"

    --
    Is your terror cell living in terror? Is your safe-house not so safe? If so, read the New York Times, the jihad journal.
  83. Re:Not a nail in the coffin of paid, valuable cont by Bimo_Dude · · Score: 1

    Where do you live (if you don't mind my asking)? Where I live, you have to pay about $50 USD / month for basic cable. Total rip off.

    --
    "Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
  84. too bad by suezz · · Score: 1

    it is in a proprietary format and I can't read it from my linux box.

    they should of done it in a format that is open and patent free.

  85. Your research study is CRAP by sweetnjguy29 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I read the study that you are using for the basis of your opinion piece.

    The methodology is to compare the number of references made by journalists to "left-wing" and "right-wing" think-tanks. The underlying assumption is that liberals will cite left-wing think-tanks more often than right-wing think-tanks. This is a bad assumption.

    The way to determine media bias is to look at what the journalist is saying and determine if what is written is fact or opinion. If it is an opinion, one then determines what category (Right, Left, Center, Other) it falls under. Then you try to determine if the opinion was that of the reporter or the paper...and if it has a connection to an ideology. Its mostly guesswork.

    Thus, the NY Times having 300 Headlines stating "X Soldiers Killed in Iraq" is not indicative of bias...since it is just reporting facts.

    1. Re:Your research study is CRAP by pagz · · Score: 1

      Thus, the NY Times having 300 Headlines stating "X Soldiers Killed in Iraq" is not indicative of bias...since it is just reporting facts.

      Wrong! That's a perfect example of the liberal defeatist attitude that only focuses on our limited failures in Iraq instead of the good will missions going on daily! :-P Hey, don't blame me I voted for Kodos

    2. Re:Your research study is CRAP by jadavis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The selection of facts, and the prominence of those facts can indicate bias.

      If you keep saying that Abu Ghraib (sp?) and Gitmo are important national issues that should occupy our minds on a daily basis, that's a perspective that I disagree with. They matter, I'm not saying we shouldn't avoid abuses, but I just don't care much about a few non-citizens locked up in a prison someplace. If abuses are happening, correct them (investigate, fire people, whatever) and shut up.

      Wouldn't it be bias if some news source only reported horrible crimes by illegal aliens? Every time an illegal alien did something wrong, you could make it a front-page article. I bet you could skew your readers' perspective about immigration policy if you do that for long enough (they might even... *gasp* advocate enforcing the laws that we already have).

      Objective is when you look at something without perspective, which is pretty much impossible. People generally consider it to be more objective if a prominent view in favor and a prominent view against are both presented, but often times there are many viewpoints. And also you can sort of set up one side to look stupid by picking a stupid advocate.

      To me, the worst kind of bias is when you inject opinion into news in creative ways. Consider the following hypothetical "news" story: "Senator A introduced bill B today. The bill does C, but critics say D, E, F, G, H ...". How many times do you see that pattern to a story? They introduce something they are against, and then to argue against it they say "critics say...". It's pretty obvious to me that they are the critics, and they just want to editorialize on the front page.

      Anonymous sources get kind of rediculous also. In 2008, I fully expect to see as a headline somewhere "Candidate X is a poopy-head, sources say.".

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    3. Re:Your research study is CRAP by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If you keep saying that Abu Ghraib (sp?) and Gitmo are important national issues that should occupy our minds on a daily basis, that's a perspective that I disagree with. They matter, I'm not saying we shouldn't avoid abuses, but I just don't care much about a few non-citizens locked up in a prison someplace. If abuses are happening, correct them (investigate, fire people, whatever) and shut up.

      Because, when you try to use moral authority to justify 'spreading democracy and freedom' to the rest of the world, and then proceed to spread lies and torture, you have no moral authority left.

      And very quickly everyone else in the world will say but I just don't care much about a few Americans locked up in a prison someplace.

      Saying you don't care makes you an idiot, not enlightened.
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Your research study is CRAP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure what you mean by noncitizens. Maybe you mean that those detained at Gitmo and elsewhere are not citizens? That doesn't make a lot of sense as everyone's a citizen of somewhere. Maybe you mean no american citizens have been detained as terror suspects, enemy combatants, or some other tortured word play? That doesn't make sense either, because american citizens are as at risk as non american citizens of unlawful detention.

      Why is it that citizenship even begins to be an issue? Torture and abuse are immoral not because they are found by a national court to be so, but because every thinking, feeling, living human being has the fundamental right to be free of torture and abuse. That this right is affirmed by various governments means that the right is recognised, but not granted.

    5. Re:Your research study is CRAP by nathanh · · Score: 1
      They matter, I'm not saying we shouldn't avoid abuses, but I just don't care much about a few non-[US] citizens locked up in a [US] prison someplace.

      Do you still feel the same way with the [US] inserts?

      They matter, I'm not saying we shouldn't avoid abuses, but I just don't care much about a few US citizens locked up in an Iraqi prison someplace.

      Hitting any neurons yet?

    6. Re:Your research study is CRAP by LKM · · Score: 1
      If you keep saying that Abu Ghraib (sp?) and Gitmo are important national issues that should occupy our minds on a daily basis, that's a perspective that I disagree with. They matter, I'm not saying we shouldn't avoid abuses, but I just don't care much about a few non-citizens locked up in a prison someplace.

      It's not about "a few non-citizens locked up in a prison someplace". It's about a constant violation of international law and about the erosion of the rights people (citizens or not) have. That most people don't care is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    7. Re:Your research study is CRAP by atokata · · Score: 1

      Quoted:
      If you keep saying that Abu Ghraib (sp?) and Gitmo are important national issues that should occupy our minds on a daily basis, that's a perspective that I disagree with. They matter, I'm not saying we shouldn't avoid abuses, but I just don't care much about a few non-citizens locked up in a prison someplace. If abuses are happening, correct them (investigate, fire people, whatever) and shut up.

      Isn't our revised reason* for invading Iraq that we wanted to liberate all those non-white, non-US-citizens, from horrible prisons, torture, and murder?

      If America really wanted to be the great nation that politicians, left and right, claim it to be, then arbitrary imprisonment and brutal torture is hardly the best strategy to winning the hearts and minds of the world.

      *Since our original reason for invasion (The hunt for WMDs) didn't really pan out?

  86. Why Grandma doesn't run Linux!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is exactly the reason why grandma doesn't run Linux. She'd be OK, until some Website that only runs content on IE browsers comes along, (usually on ALL of them) and BAM, "Why doesn't this work?.

    Just follow these (simple?) instructions, Grandma; (and don't forget to write your own drivers for that dial-up (win)modem and re-compile your Kernel.

    Linux fan who knows that Linux isn't quite ready for the desktop yet.

    1. Re:Why Grandma doesn't run Linux!!! by Ron+Harwood · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean linux is not ready for the desktop - that means that CNN has focused on windows clients and controlling their content...

      --
      BlackNova Traders
    2. Re:Why Grandma doesn't run Linux!!! by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      Just follow these (simple?) instructions, Grandma; (and don't forget to write your own drivers for that dial-up (win)modem and re-compile your Kernel.

      Thats when you ssh in and do it for her. Like a good grandson....

      Linux fan who knows that Linux isn't quite ready for the desktop yet.

      Whose desktop? It does well on a nerd's.....

      --

      Open Source Sushi

  87. Citation by mccabem · · Score: 1
    http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/M ed ia.Bias.8.htm [ucla.edu]

    which finds, in part

    Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our measures all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the Drudge Report, and ABCs World News Tonight) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives.


    I'll admit up front that I haven't read the above-linked article.

    That said, thanks for tha tip.

    Any article claiming to analyze bias in reporting that would incorporate a bias like making Congress Critters the reference point for "normal" is worth steering well clear of.
  88. Are there enough nails to go around? by Digital+Pizza · · Score: 1
    Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?
    This made me snicker a little, because I always see the phrase:
    "Is this another nail in the coffin of free content on the internet?".
    I'm very glad to see this because I'm always seeing interesting-looking but apparently video-only stories on cnn.com, but can't view them. Now I can!

    Yes, I am a cheap bastard.

    --
    We apologize for the inconvenience.
  89. Free, but Windows only by dniq · · Score: 1

    Yes, it is free now (it was 5 bucks/month before - big deal), but at the same time it's now Windows only - no RealVideo, no Quicktime, just plain dumb Windows Media. Which means no Linux, no Mac OS X... Well, too bad for them - no more watching CNN news online. I for one has long preferred CBSNEWS.com - better video quality and supports RealVideo.

    1. Re:Free, but Windows only by kennyz · · Score: 1
      I agree... in fact, many RoadRunner customers (including myself) had free access to CNN.com videos all along - it was one of the benefits of being on the RoadRunner network.

      Now, the switch from RealVideo to Windows Media means that it's still free for me, but I can no longer view the video feeds on my Linux machine.

      And this is supposedly a step FORWARD???

    2. Re:Free, but Windows only by gavinroy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not that I'm advocating its use, but my OS/X box has a free Windows Media Player that's native to the OS. So, I suspect that narrows the list to *NIX based systems as being unsupported.

    3. Re:Free, but Windows only by dniq · · Score: 1

      Does it actually _work_? Because it doesn't in Tiger. And anyway, it doesn't really matter: there won't be any new versions of WMP for Mac OS X. If anything, they should have used Real Video, which is supported on all major platforms. But hey, what do we know? Like I said - there's always cbsnews.com, which provides the same free video in RealVideo and... it's better quality (WAY much better), than CNN's.

    4. Re:Free, but Windows only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I abohor Real Video. I uninstalled Realplayer 10 after it hijacked almost all multimedia filetype associations within my Gentoo installation.

    5. Re:Free, but Windows only by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Yeah? The CNN videos work for me in Tiger (using Safari as my browser with the WMP plugin). Though I'd still prefer something QuickTime could play, like H.264, since Windows Media Player is abhorrent, hideous in appearance and behavior.

  90. Re:Not a nail in the coffin of paid, valuable cont by jordandeamattson · · Score: 1

    Hi Everphilski -

    Your situation is about what I have. Basic cable, with local channels and the smattering of good cable channels, is around $15.95. For me this is essentially noise with respec to cost.

    The effect of this, is that basic cable channels are essentially "free" to me.

    Yours,

    Jordan

  91. And CCN is so much easier to type by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Frankly I normally watch Fox News (if I must watch any news at all, normally I turn to google news) but on the web CNN is the only big news site I visit as I am lazy and CNN is so vcery easy to type and remember...

    I didn't even know Fox News had free video before or I would have been a lot more likley to viist there before when I was annyed at CNN for some for-pay video segment I wanted to see!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  92. If this is the end... by aslate · · Score: 3, Informative

    According to the summary:

    Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?

    Funny, i've been getting free news broadcasts off BBC News for ages, and it's decent news programming at that! No "free registration", random cookies and adverts either.

    1. Re:If this is the end... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the BBC is already paid for by the TV License.

    2. Re:If this is the end... by jbbrwcky · · Score: 1

      Yeah me too! BBC news is pretty good, quality isn't too hot sometimes, but at least they give you the news rather than an opinion on the news.

      --
      Honi soit qui mal y pense.
  93. wft??? by UnanimousCoward · · Score: 1

    Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?

    Yeah, right--someday, all internet porn will be 'free.'

    --
    Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
  94. In related news: WHO CARES? by mabu · · Score: 1

    With all due respect, this isn't newsworthy, any more than it's a revelation that the stuff people don't sell at a yard sale end up in the trash, free-for-the-picking, the next day.

    If anyone knows better, it's the online community, who recognizes that the mainstream media is so marginalized in terms of content, it's not worth paying attention to. This can be traced back to Reagan's veto of Fairness Doctrine. Now mainstream media and news is basically one long infomercial for cars, pills and unoriginal theatrical releases.

    If any of the news networks want to make useful video available, they should remove the commentary and show the whole raw feeds, so that people without ADD can get more of the story before it gets approved for publication by their advertisers.

  95. Nancy Grace on my computer??!! NOT!! by lcsjk · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    I would rather throw-up than have to watch Nancy Grace for an hour. I wish everyone who felt like me would send a letter or email to CNN to see if her program time could be changed to about 4:00 am (Sorry, your third shifters.)With enough letters, maybe CNN would get the message. She may be a good reporter, but she hurts my ears.

    Since CNN changed formats, and because of Nancy Grace, I switch between MSNBC,FOX and CNN plus some other locals when they are on. It is difficult to get unbiased news reporting, and with FOX and MSNBC hosting so many shouting matches (we call it entertainment?) they fail to have any credibility.

    Greta Van Whats-her-name seems to be coming into her own as a not-so-biased reporter.

    If you think any of these programs are not biased, then you can be sure that you are biased also. Left, right, it just doesn't matter. Biased is still biased. It's too bad we (here in the USA) don't have more access to news sources from other countries.

  96. No, Add up the time spent watching forced ads. by ashitaka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You have to watch the ad. You cannot skip it, you cannot fast forward it. You are stuck watching that same flipping spot for a car sitting in a waterfall which I for one will never buy.

    That's the trade off. Your time. As valuable as you make it.

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  97. CBS News by Natchswing · · Score: 1

    CBS News has always had free video. Why assume that it's only pressure from Fox.

  98. No. by glrotate · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else see the problem with this basis for comparison?

    It's a discussion of political leanings, so a usefull reference point would be the average politician.

  99. Thought Police by LPetrazickis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oy. Enough with the friggin' thought police.

    Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress.

    So? The average member of Congress is Republican right now. In fact, I suspect that there's also "a surprising liberal bias" among the general populace relative to the average member of Congress too.

    There's supposed to be opinion drift in the media, and it's not supposed to be towards the pablum-like average. New directions and radical ideas have to be pursued. Progress beckons.

    --
    Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
    1. Re:Thought Police by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      So? The average member of Congress is Republican right now.

      No, the median member of Congress is Republican. There is a huge difference.

      I would also like to point out that if they were basing this point system on amount of spending, the average member of Congress would be liberal.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  100. Why only Windows media? by Quevar · · Score: 1

    Why are they only releasing it in Windows Media? Why not go with something that has a better compression algorithm like H.264 or DivX 6? I'll pass on the large file sizes for small resolution video.

  101. Windows Media & Real Player Free? by Macrat · · Score: 1

    Bondage to proprietary formats isn't free.

  102. Re:This isn't about nails, or coffins. Micropaymen by Fastball · · Score: 1

    No.

    I'll find someone who'll fucking gouge me monthly before I submit to micropayments. Too much accounting from too many different places for this catch on. Unless, of course, you don't balance your checkbook each month. In which case, I encourage you to click your way to Chapter 11.

  103. Re:OT- Stop the shitty manual emoticon sig please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I must say, he's got a very high Slashdot ID, so he hasn't been around for a very long time, and yet and he's clocked over 700 comments. That alone shows dedication...

  104. CNN Free Video - a bit late?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    So what did CNN do that is radically different? Like it says, Fox already did offer free video. I used to visit MSN and they always had free videos of so many things. I used to wonder why would people pay for video on CNN. Guess they didn't have any subscribers.

    http://coolpri.blogspot.com/

  105. In Other news... by CaptRespect · · Score: 1

    CNN and Fox News both plan to release video feed live on your television for free.

  106. only windows media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cnn site is only windows media.

    I want quicktime and not real. Real is buggy.

    Check out these qt flicks...pretty cool hd stuff..

    http://www.apple.com/quicktime/hdgallery/

  107. Sponsered Content by SirSlud · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?

    There's no such thing as free information. How can slashdot possibly print the above with a straight face; their information is 'free', but the content is highly dictated by commercial interests. Any content with advertising in it is not free. How about 'another nail in the coffin for subscriber supported unbiased editorial and news content?'

    I cannot believe the shit being passed off as news. The Odd News page seems to be the very antithesis of what we need; and yet, we flock to it in droves since real news often doesn't taste so good going down.

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  108. failure of real (Re:Wasn't it "free" before?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, if you watched carefully, CNN didn't just switch from 'free videos' to 'pay videos', but also from 'other' to 'real media based subscription service'. And the CNN newspass was tightly integrated with real's content strategy and subscription CDN offerings.

    MSN on the other hand didn't do this on MSN video.

    They all use a number of CDNs to do this, but not the subscription model. A glaring counterpoint to all this is the success of ESPN broadband, which is an indirect subscription model (provider signs up, not individual).

    The switch to this ad supported approach may indicate in fact indicate a larger motion... and ultimately the failure of real network's subscription model.

  109. "Checkbooks"? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1
    Unless, of course, you don't balance your checkbook each month.

    What are these "checkbooks" you American keep going on about? I don't think I've written a cheque in five years.

  110. WMV only ... no thanks by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 1

    It appears that one of the ways they cut costs enough to make their video "free" was to remove some of the formats. They used to give you a choice of several players; now it seems to require Windows Media Monopolizer. As far as I'm concerned, they just lost a viewer. I'll head over to BBC where open source codecs are all the rage...

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    1. Re:WMV only ... no thanks by omega9 · · Score: 1

      You're free to have your rant against WMV, but it works perfectly fine with mplayerplug-in.

      --
      I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
    2. Re:WMV only ... no thanks by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 1

      You're free to have your rant against WMV, but it works perfectly fine with mplayerplug-in.

      That's not the point. Having to work around Microsoft proprietary formats puts us at a distinct disadvantage, especially when you have to work around a software patent minefield to get it working, and when Microsoft is free to change their proprietary format whenever they want to.

      Content needs to be in a truly open format that Linux can play right out of the box.

      --
      Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  111. Windows Media virus discovered, watch video now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait till they do a major story about some security flaw in Windows Media, and then have a video to go along with it in, yes... windows media only...

    QuickTime or Flash video should be supported.

  112. I reject the premises by cinder_bdt · · Score: 1
    Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?


    It would be refreshing if Slashdot returned to a place where honest debates, with positions stated openly, were welcome. Instead, we get troll bait quetions like the one on the end of this "article".

    Why didn't you just post your manifesto?

    ** "paid content" belongs in a coffin because in general it is a Bad Thing.

    ** Eventually some sea change will occur, after which everyone will "get a clue" and will stop trying in vain to receive compensation for the efforts of their labor.

    ** Bad Corporations pay enough attention to each other and use the behavior of other corporations as indicators of the way they should behave in the future.
  113. MOD PARENT UP PLEASE by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    if you google, you will find that there is plenty of critism of the original story. WHile it is pushed by Fox news, it appears to fail in the acedemic world. Off hand, it would appear that a MS study of Windows vs. Linux has more validity than does the original study.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP PLEASE by DirePickle · · Score: 1

      Well, see, FOX news doesn't care about the academic world, because Academia is just a bunch of Leftist America-hating gay-loving Europe-sympathizing non-Republicans!

  114. It's, its, etc. by grammarbitch · · Score: 1

    Fine, so "it's" vs. "its" may not be the end of the world, but can't we at least get it right on the main-page postings?

  115. Pay for Positive Information, not news! by hexed_2050 · · Score: 1

    Here's my opinion on paying for internet content. Pay only for positive information that will positively increase your way of living or your professional job. Example. If you're an IT professional, it would be a wise idea to pay for subscription to Windows IT Professional Magazine, or Experts-Exchange.com. Why pay for news? You can turn on the TV and get the same thing for free. Plus, most news is negative and will not positively effect your life. hexed

    --
    Valkyrie is about to die! Wizard needs food -- badly!
  116. dear Slashdot "editors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?
    It would be refreshing if Slashdot returned to a place where honest debates, with positions stated openly, were welcome. Why not simply post your manifesto?
    1. "paid content" belongs in a coffin because in general it is a Bad Thing.
    2. Eventually some sea change will occur, after which everyone will "get a clue" and will stop trying in vain to receive compensation for the efforts of their labor.
  117. Wrong Site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that is the key strokes that you type on the Fox News site to stop the subliminal messages coming at you "Bush is Great".

  118. Ya know... by phorm · · Score: 1

    My home connection has more than enough bandwidth/etc to view fairly good resolution, streamed video. The big hurdles are:

    a) ISP monthly-usage limits
    b) Places that offer good video services

    I forsee a future where internet-TV could become more common, and subscribers could register on a per-station basis (much more intelligent than the packaged 10-1 crapratio that's on TV). First though ISPS will have to increase their monthly limits.

    This could be a real cash-cow for TV stations in the future though. I'd love to catch Dr Who off BBC, and would happily subscribe. Heck, a pay-per-view model would work great here too where they charge on a per-slot basis.

  119. Well, yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, on one hand, American politics (IANAA, but an interested observer) do generally resolve to a left vs. right sort of continuum. Ergo, if you're sitting well to the left end of the spectrum, you're obviously going to see more people to your right than to your left. It's normal, much like someone sitting well to the right won't have much company over to his right.

    Take as an example the American Conservative Magazine's editorial coverage of the 2004 election. They ran a feature in the Nov. 8th edition discussing who to vote for.

    Out of the six editorials, one of the six recommended George W. Bush. One. Granted, they did go out of their way to make arguments for all the options (including one for John Kerry), but the fact remains that there are people out there who feel that George W. Bush is a traitor to conservativism (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing here, just pointing this out).

    And I'm not even going to get into big government/libertarianism, historical/technical definitions of conservative/liberal, etc., etc. My point is that in the context of American politics, for as long as there are two dominant, fairly well-defined groups along a fairly well-correlated spectrum - it doesn't matter what we call each one or where they're situated - somewhere between the two groups, there will be a statistical mean.

    And I'd say that a statistical mean is as good a place as any to make comparison. It's not the only place, of course - you can make comparisons to the rest of the world. Uruk's done that in a fairly good post below this one, although he omitted some issues (immigration) that would go against his trend. I'd be inclined to say that the left-right spectrum in Europe is simply not perfectly aligned with the American spectrum, though I certainly wouldn't argue that the European center is closer to the American left than the American right.

    You can also make historical comparisons, but those are difficult - ideologies change, issues and threats change, and the two groups shift over time. Look no further than the death of small federal government.

    Anyways, to cut to the point, the post about the UCLA analysis above is really interesting to me because it actually compares media coverage of the various groups to something other than the other groups. If you look at FOX News and then at, say, CBS (IANA Dan Rather Fan), it's natural to say that FOX is further right than CBS in their coverage. That one's hard to debate. However, what's more interesting is how the various networks relate to the American political spectrum as a whole, rather than simply the other media institutions.

    Of course, what'd be even more interesting would be a benchmark that keeps track of which of the news companies are the most factually accurate, rather than just where they stand politically. Or maybe that's just me.

    Cheers

  120. CNN = Communist News Network by ArchAngel21x · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Even for free, I won't watch their left leaning biased as hell enemy sympathizing stories.

  121. If you can make money from free content.... by CokoBWare · · Score: 1

    If you can make money from free content, your competitors will have to adjust their income model to compete. Offer a better product so there is no equal, and you can charge for it. Otherwise, forget about charging for content on your website. Remember: people will only pay for content they feel they can't get anywhere else.

  122. crashed my machine by guyjr · · Score: 1

    I thought it was funny when I went to launch a video from CNN's site today in Mozilla on my Win2K box, only to have the machine very suddenly and unexpectedly spotaneously reboot. No BSOD, no error popup, nothing. For a second I thought it was switching to full screen mode to show an interstitial commercial, til I saw the nice big "IBM" logo that always comes up when my machine boots.

    Come to think of it, it wasn't so funny after all.

  123. CNN pfffft by ankarbass · · Score: 1

    I don't know about the rest of you but I go right to FOX to get my up to the minute news about michael jackson.

    --
    Wanted: Clever sig, top $ paid, all offers considered.
  124. I 've had enough of Larry King on TV by unclocked · · Score: 1

    I've had enough of Larry King on TV, can't take him on internet :)

  125. Completely unimpressed by fname · · Score: 1

    Video on the web is neat and all, but it's almost always poorly implemented and ultimately a waste of resouces. I'm now trying to watch video of the world's biggest popsicle melting on CNN and it's a joke. It plays for 3 seconds, stops for 10, plays for 3, etc. Painful. Not only that, sitting through a :30 ad to watch a 1-minute story is not a good value proposition from a consumer perspective.

    Instead of wasting there time on poorly implemented, over-sponsored video, why doesn't CNN show pictures larger than a postage stamp? I hate these news websites which have long stories about different things (think Mars Rovers, new sculptures, building designs, Mac mini, etc.) which cry out for pictures and they show 1 tiny picture which has essentially no detail. Many news sites don't even have pictures! Why is this-- they have no problem showing 10 or more image ads on 1 page.

    My advice to CNN: introduce the video service when you can do it well. Until then, spend your money on bandwidth so you can show pictures of buildings, landscapes, cars & people that are bigger than those on my postage stamps.

  126. I still await your response to my reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I await what is sure to be a stunningly cogent reply.

    I await what is sure to be a whiny, meandering and abusive reply to my "stunningly cogent" one (see further up in this thread) that you seemed to so eagerly await.

  127. Linux Howtos??? by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    I have never been able to make those things play in Linux - well, I haven't tried very hard either, but before I cause myself a lot of pain, are there any guides to get it going on Linux?

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
    1. Re:Linux Howtos??? by whookey · · Score: 1

      Try mplayerplug-in .

      --
      somebody bent my whookey.
    2. Re:Linux Howtos??? by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Cool, thanks!

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
  128. Damn communists by guet · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why do you hate freedom?

    Research shows that the BBC is to the left of even the two most liberal senators in the US Senate. This makes it unsafe to watch. Also, it's funded by obligatory public subscription, which is un-American and almost socialistical.

    Watch Fox news instead, where honest men and women tell it like they were told it is.

    1. Re:Damn communists by aslate · · Score: 2, Informative

      Of course, the network accused of being biased against all 3 major political parties, by the respective party, is obviously highly biased!

      Liberal is considered an insult in America from what i gather (Even the tone of "BBC is to the left of even the two most liberal senators" suggests that). You might want to know that the "Liberal Democrats" got 22% of the vote (After 35.2% and 32.3%).

    2. Re:Damn communists by guet · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I thought the 'Why do you hate freedom' and '2 most liberal senators' bits of newspeak would give it away.

      It was a joke (including gratuitous the link), *please* don't take it seriously.

      I vote Liberal Democrat myself, if they were a US party I reckon they'd be considered wacko extremists.

    3. Re:Damn communists by aslate · · Score: 1

      Alarm bells were ringing when i read the FOX News bit, damn me!

      Ah well, at least someone thought it was informative!

    4. Re:Damn communists by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Come to think of it... I remember somewhere that the BBC website is banned in China, however I can't remember if Fox News is?

      Could a Chinese /. reader verify this?

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  129. Paid content is a historical abberation. by Distan · · Score: 1

    In the golden days, all content on the internet was free.

    Then came Mosaic, then came the profiteers, and then came paid content. This is a historical aberration.

    In the future, content will return to the natural state - free. Only the smallest wedge will remain "for fee", and that will primarily be for early access to information destined to be free.

  130. Ashcroft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CNN video? Oh JOY! That means we can let the mighty eagle soar again! It's been quite a while for me: http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2002/02/25/ashcroft.si ngs.wbtv.med.html>

  131. WHO CARES? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHO CARES?

  132. Wow. Are you, um, serious? by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

    And then there's this completely fabricated gem from the election:
    Trail Tails: What's that face?

    Are you serious?

    That's a HUMOR piece.

    The original is still right here; why did you link to it on another site that deleted the reference graphic to "Trail Tales", and the archives of other little stories that made up the "Trail Tales" series ("Trail Tales" was a humorous/funny/"insider" take on some of the pre-election mania, and was NOT part of, or related to, official hard news coverage of the election)?

    Further, the current article contains: "The item was based on a reporter's partial script that had been written in jest". Even if you argue that it could have been taken seriously, FOX News did exactly what people say it doesn't do, which is retract and correct itself; a correction that is still there today. Further, it wasn't even up for a whole day!

    I don't even know what to say to this.

    It's NOT news, or intended to be taken as news or factual content (e.g., Kerry saying he should do manicures). It's like many of the little fanicful parodies of the process that have been seen on the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times, LA Times Washinton Post, and in syndication the nation over, from liberals and conservatives alike.

    As for your "Media Matters(TM)" crap (one of the main organizations constantly out to "prove" that FOX News is a right-wing propaganda mouthpiece), once again, are you serious? They picked like, what, a dozen of what they claim are errors out of how many thousands upon thousands of hours of 24/7 programming? Christ, I can remember watching CNN or CBS before the election and hearing their "hard news" anchors put "spin" on things themselves as well, in the other direction. I mean, when you have an organization who is embodied by the idea that many people are distraught by the fact FOX News even exists and whose sole goal is to promote the agenda that FOX News is hopelessly biased to the right and is on some secret campaign against innocent liberals and puppy dogs everywhere, what do you expect? You could just as easily tick off occasional inaccuracies, or things you disagree with (e.g., referring to the DeLay issue as "intensely partisan" - who's to say it's not? Is that not accurate?) from other news outlets as well. But unfortunately, conservative activists don't seem to have the amount of time on their hands to start websites specifically to discredit their ideological opponents as the liberal/progressive ones do. Go figure.

    1. Re:Wow. Are you, um, serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > conservative activists don't seem to have the
      > amount of time on their hands to start websites
      > specifically to discredit their ideological opponents
      > as the liberal/progressive ones do.

      Surely, you're joking.

      That's without counting the sea of online polemics & punditry which are, primarily, dedicated to watching and critiquing liberals and liberalism (and occasionally promoting conservatism). Look at Michelle Malkin's blogroll. It's a strange and magical journey of links that, literally, does not end. Truly liberal print polemicism is essentially missing from the online market when compared with Horowitz, Hitchens, TNR, etc... the most stridently anti-conservative polemics come from friggin' libertarians these days. As for the blogosphere and citizen pundits, check out Kos et al. and you'll hit a dead end in terms of organization and persistence. Whether you're liberal or conservative, you're simply off the mark if you believe that American liberals are not completely outgunned in terms of strength of internet presence.

  133. I think the largest online industry... by yuriismaster · · Score: 1

    would disagree with this statement:

    Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?>/i>

    And we all know what industry that is (hint: rhymes with hornography)

  134. No... by lullabud · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't prefer that. I never liked Spin City, even if I think I can accurately judge the underlying meaning of its people. I'd prefer hard facts and a story about what is observed at the scene where the event is happening so that I may draw my own conclusions. I'd rather not have spin, left or right, and I don't care what the anchors feel about the rightness, wrongness or justness of the situation. I'd prefer that they report the news. Period. That's a pipe dream, I know, and I guess that's why I rarely pay attention to mainstream american media anymore.

    1. Re:No... by donutz · · Score: 1

      That's a pipe dream, I know, and I guess that's why I rarely pay attention to mainstream american media

      It's a pipe dream for you to sit there and think that outlets other than the "mainstream american media" are unbiased. Just because someone says they're giving you the staight facts doesn't mean they are. Or that they're telling you all the facts. Maybe their bias leads them to pass over facts that could be important but they dont think those facts are.

  135. Left, Right, Up, and Down by Shihar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Allow me to explain a little better. When I said the US was centrist, I didn't mean that it was centrist compared to the rest of the world. What I meant is that the parties in the US tend to converge. When you take your average republican and compare him to your average democrat, the two are not radically different. Sure, they differ on some points, but neither of them are socialist by any stretch of the imagination, nor is either one an ultra right wing anti-immigration or ultra libertarian. Now, go to nearly European. The difference between the left and the right is vast. On the left you will have a party that calls themselves a communist party, or in the very least, socialist party. On the right you have ultra-nationalist parties. It isn't that Europeans are more divided then Americans (though they might, I really can't say), it is that a parliamentary system is far more encouraging of extreme parties and far more likely to give them some say in government.

    Austria's Freedom Party comes to mind as a right wing party with power that is extremely far to the right, which recently gain power. Jean-Marie Le Pen of the National Front also comes to mind as an extreme right winger with considerable support.

    I am not saying that these people and parties represent the majority in Europe. What I am saying is that they without a doubt have a voice due to the nature of a parliamentary system. When people across the ocean across talk politics, the use of 'left' and 'right' really muddies the waters. The far 'right' in America that has any sort of political voice is nothing like the far 'right' of Europe.

    For a fun exercise, try and find the economic positions of the two European parties. In both cases you will be lucky to find anything that mentions taxes, liberal economics, and free trade, the bread and butter of economic policy 'right' in America. What you will find is page after page on their immigration policies, which in Le Pen's case, is to eliminate it altogether. The European right is utterly obsessed with immigration. Now, try to find the immigration policies of an American right wing congressmen. If they live on the border with Mexico you might find a blurb about it, but it won't even be comparable to the European right wing. The American right is obsessed with free trade economics, but barely pays any attention to immigration. In fact, the guest visa system Bush has proposed would send both the European left and right up the wall. The two rights share almost nothing in common other then that they are not socialist.

    While left and right are easy terms to shoot off, they really ignore the full range of the political spectrum and lead to gross misunderstandings, especially when trying to translate it across the old pond. For instance, the 'far right' American Libertarians could not even sit in the same room with the 'far right' National Front of France without killing each other.

  136. PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO PAY IF IT ADDS VALUE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forbes, NYTimes and WSJ are good examples that are generating a lot of money from online subscriptions. Why pay extra for CNN Video archives when you can watch the rerun 104292 times on TV? Almost everyone has cable and is already paying for CNN so they see no need to pay for it again.

  137. Paid Content is Dead! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if you'll excuse me, my guild is almost ready to go take down Tunare.

  138. Re:MOD PARENT SIDEWAYS PLEASE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Academia is just a bunch of Leftist America-hating gay-loving Europe-sympathizing non-Republicans.
    While I wouldn't use such flamebait terms to phrase it, and while I certainly don't consider being leftist, gay-loving, Europe-sympathizing to be wrong (America-haters can kiss my ass), the numbers do bear out your sarcastic remark.
  139. We can no longer say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That the USA will be the first country to vote itself into a fascist state...

    we alrready have...

    and with that... our flaming liberal news agencies that used to speak out, are turning tail and saying yesssir, rightsir!

    we're so screwed.

  140. Pleeeaaassee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All that shows is that the more intelligent you are, the greater the chance that you will vote for somebody who is intelligent, moral, and not a coward.

  141. Paid content will not die. by mwsnow · · Score: 1


    Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?

    No. This is just another example of the high cost of being an early technology adopter. Paid content will not go away; it will get better.

  142. There is NO liberal media. There is a LAZY press. by saskboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They disagree with "liberal" media outlets, because those outlets don't openly lie and distort the truth in the name of entertainment like Fox News does. They are not always "yes men" for the Bush Administration. These days telling the news or ignoring it [as in World events], is synonymous with "liberal media", and "fair and balanced" is synonymous with "lie through your teeth if it hooks viewers and supports the Bush administration.

    The American media is so messed up I was tempted to use a swear word instead of "messed up" [but I'm trying to keep slashdot a family website ;-)]. Bill O'Idiot routinely lies, and all you have to do is listen to him speak for 5 minutes to know that, or listen to Al Franken and he'll explain it to you while offering background for the lies.

    All Americans don't have to agree with what their media is broadcasting, but if the media is telling them anything other than the facts within context, then Americans are being MISLEAD. The myth of the free press has been exposed many times, and it angers me that more Americans seem upset about what is portrayed as "liberal bias" by right wing spin doctors like Coulter and O'Idiot, instead of the fact that all of their media outlets simply publish White House propaganda verbatim, are lazy, and are corporate whores.

    The Press is supposed to be relaying facts, it isn't supposed to be popular entertainment that tries to win over viewers by appealing to the viewer's political biases.

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  143. I want my MTV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Money for nothin' and chicks for free!

    So... where is it?

  144. from an OS X user by 5n3ak3rp1mp · · Score: 1

    1) The WMP video check is useless, as I have a Mac with Windows Media Player installed and it still fails.
    2) Using the workaround cited above to get it to work on Linux (go straight to http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html), I can see the video fine.
    3) [rant] I am sick and tired of browser-specific, OS-specific content on the mother-friggin' Internet! [/rant]

  145. The answer is YES. by Alsee · · Score: 1

    Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?

    Yes. All one hundred million paid porn sites on the internet just simultaneously closed up shop.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  146. Uhhh how do you measure the center??? by bsullivan2 · · Score: 1

    How do you measure "centrism"? How do you measure bias? Is something still bias even if it's right? Or true? If a report comes out that is critical of the Bush administration, but the criticism is accurate and justified (by fact or common sense or what have you) is that liberal bias? Does being unbiased mean giving credence to both sidess' opinions even when one side's opinion is clearly erronous? The problems are: 1. Religion - According to religion, Faith > Logic. This form of thinking should not exist anymore. 2. Interest (money) - Often a certain stance on an issue is taken out of monetary gain. It will always be monetarily beneficial for an oil industry executive to be pro-oil industry, and for a hollywood studio exec to be anti-anything that could result in an increase in piracy, and for a senator to vote on the side of the lobbyists that are bribing him.

  147. Re:OT- Stop the shitty manual emoticon sig please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I turned off sigs for a reason: I found them annoying.

    ...Yet you have one of your own. How delightfully hypocritical.

  148. Crap news in video form - brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is fantastic news.

    I can now watch the video version of the crud that passes for news on CNN.

    CNN != news

    50% of CNN is advertising and of the remaining 50%, about 25% of that is just self-promoting stuff about "what's coming up".

    They spend more air-time telling you "what's coming up" than broadcasting the program when it DOES "come up"

    Absolute garbage.

  149. What can I do with free Infotainment? by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

    I can line the bird cage with the daily newspaper.

    Any ideas of what I can do with a CNN video of Michael Jackson dodging reporters? I mean, as long as we are ignoring real news that is... ...perhaps I could add a soft focus blur and use it as a mood light? Or put it on a bit torrent as "Hot Hilton Action.avi" to frustrate about 10,000 broadband users.

    ***

    I predict that, in response to Fox competition, CNN will also start putting a waving American flag behind every graphic that is appropriately patriotic. Wee!

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  150. CNN on Iraq's WMD (1997, 1998) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    False. The whole world was not behind the resolution nor did they all think there were wmds. In fact, even when the UN inspectors who were on the ground asked for the 'evidence' that the White House had of supposed wmds, every single piece proved to be false. There were no weapons or evidence of weapons at any site the White House pointed to.

    Further, Scott Ritter and others, people who were directly involved with the inspections, stated that there were no wmds and were immediately singled out for the propoganda machine to try and discredit them.

    One of the things that CNN.com has done right is to allow old articles to be freely and easily accessed.

    Articles from from 1997-1998 are a good reminder that NO ONE in US government during the Clinton administration publicly doubted that Iraq had WMD. By and large, this continued until the end of 2002. It was only when Iraq opened its 'presidential sites' and other locations for inspections in Nov. 2002 - Jan. 2003 -- and allowed its scientists to be interviewed by weapons inspectors -- that mainstream officials (though mostly non-US) began to suspect that maybe Iraq really didn't have WMD after all.

    Scott Ritter is something of a puzzle. He was on the record in early 2002 claiming that Iraq had no WMD. But in this 1998 CNN interview, he sounds as extreme and sure of himself as Dick Cheney ever did:

    "If they continue down this path, there will be a compromise solution, the special commission will be compelled to close files prematurely and the end result will be that Iraq will be allowed to maintain the weapons of mass destruction," Ritter said.

    "This is a resolution. Its laws are clear. Iraq is in violation of the laws. The Security Council (including the United States) must be willing to enforce its laws," he emphasized."


    From a 1997 article, before the UN weapons inspectors left Iraq:

    Iraq claims there is no need for United Nations weapon inspections because it has destroyed all of its weapons of mass destruction.

    Experts on Iraq's weapons program, however, disagree.

    Indeed, American officials fear that unless Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is monitored and kept from having free rein over his weapons arsenal, he could potentially kill millions of people.

    Among the fears are that Iraq could build a nuclear bomb in one or two years; rebuild its ballistic missile force within one year; or deploy chemical and biological weapons within weeks.


    If the Bush administration lied about WMD, so too did the Clinton administration -- even to the same degree.

    The real problem with Bush is not the misinformation about WMD. It is (1) that he chose to resolve the perceived problem with military invasion, rather than with peaceful methods and (2) that he did not call off the invasion once Iraq complied with most of his requests during the 2002-2003 winter.