Then contact CNN and let them know you fully agree.
I took that opportunity as soon as I finished reading the transcripts. I thought the hosts' treatment of Mr. Stewart was abominable. They refused to let him make his point or defend his charges. They seemed embarrassed by what he was saying, as if his charges were too close to the mark. This transcript said a LOT to me about the smallness of the hosts' characters.
I especially liked Mr. Stewart's reaction to Carlson's lame attempt at insult: "You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think." when he replied, "You need to go to one." It's clear to me that Crossfire is NOT journalism. It is theater, pure and simple. What does their rude, insulting, "don't-let-you-finish-a-thought" technique tell me about how a politician will behave in office or what his viewpoints are? How stupid. CNN should have the wisdom and courage to cancel the show, or at least dramatically alter its format. I agree with Mr. Stewart that the show only harms America and our political process.
Your examples seem to imply you think the U.S. news media (and CNN in particular) is biased to the RIGHT. Most U.S. believe, and most comprehensive studies conclude, that the U.S. news media (especially television and particularly CNN) is biased to the LEFT. Interesting. Is Canada so far left of the U.S. that what is left to us is right to you? Hmmm... (I've heard people make this claim before. Your post tends to confirm it.)
I actually don't have any problem with bias in news reporting. After all, it's very difficult to view events, distill them, summarize them, decide what to pursue and what to leave alone, without using your biases to guide your choices. I just wish that all news outlets and/or reporters were required to declare their bias. There should be some wording that is required to be added to every outlet's tag line, and/or a decoration that must be added to their logo, that indicates their bias. If an outlet chooses to remain "neutral" then they should be subject to audit and analysis that confirms their neutrality. I'm sure experts could find a suitable definition and set of analyses to deny or confirm compliance. (Note that I'm talking about news reporting here, not commentary. Commentary is already acknowledged to be biased and the commentator's bias is usually already identified. If necessary, a "this is commentary" tag line or decoration could be introduced.)
I think we would all be better informed this way. If someone read an article from an outlet or reporter identified as right-leaning then, if they wished, they could seek out left-leaning articles on the same events, making it much easier to see both sides of an issue. And making it much more obvious to everyone who reads an article which viewpoint they are reading.
Slashdot Mirror
Then contact CNN and let them know you fully agree.
I took that opportunity as soon as I finished reading the transcripts. I thought the hosts' treatment of Mr. Stewart was abominable. They refused to let him make his point or defend his charges. They seemed embarrassed by what he was saying, as if his charges were too close to the mark. This transcript said a LOT to me about the smallness of the hosts' characters.
I especially liked Mr. Stewart's reaction to Carlson's lame attempt at insult: "You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think." when he replied, "You need to go to one." It's clear to me that Crossfire is NOT journalism. It is theater, pure and simple. What does their rude, insulting, "don't-let-you-finish-a-thought" technique tell me about how a politician will behave in office or what his viewpoints are? How stupid. CNN should have the wisdom and courage to cancel the show, or at least dramatically alter its format. I agree with Mr. Stewart that the show only harms America and our political process.
3. CNN is completely biased...
Your examples seem to imply you think the U.S. news media (and CNN in particular) is biased to the RIGHT. Most U.S. believe, and most comprehensive studies conclude, that the U.S. news media (especially television and particularly CNN) is biased to the LEFT. Interesting. Is Canada so far left of the U.S. that what is left to us is right to you? Hmmm... (I've heard people make this claim before. Your post tends to confirm it.)
I actually don't have any problem with bias in news reporting. After all, it's very difficult to view events, distill them, summarize them, decide what to pursue and what to leave alone, without using your biases to guide your choices. I just wish that all news outlets and/or reporters were required to declare their bias. There should be some wording that is required to be added to every outlet's tag line, and/or a decoration that must be added to their logo, that indicates their bias. If an outlet chooses to remain "neutral" then they should be subject to audit and analysis that confirms their neutrality. I'm sure experts could find a suitable definition and set of analyses to deny or confirm compliance. (Note that I'm talking about news reporting here, not commentary. Commentary is already acknowledged to be biased and the commentator's bias is usually already identified. If necessary, a "this is commentary" tag line or decoration could be introduced.)
I think we would all be better informed this way. If someone read an article from an outlet or reporter identified as right-leaning then, if they wished, they could seek out left-leaning articles on the same events, making it much easier to see both sides of an issue. And making it much more obvious to everyone who reads an article which viewpoint they are reading.