CNN is all propaganda/all agenda, all of the time. That includes sister network HLN. However, you should not get the idea that it is always a matter of POLITICAL proganda. This article goes back to an HLN atrocity of a week ago Thursday, which shows just how evil CNN and HLN ca be.
Yes, the HLN host decided to take up th e"cause" of that San Antonion beauty pageant winner who was deprived of her "crown"--allegedly because she got FAT (okay, allegedly gained weight--if I don't want to be agenda driven like CNN/HLN). Yes, HLN did a totally biased interview with the "beauty queen) who is suing the pageant people--who had LOST her attempt at an immediate temporary injuncion. However, at least at the time of the referenced story, there was still a trial on the merits scheduled (the merits, that is, other than immediate injunctive relief).
Now I said this is not political propaganda, even though it is propaganda, and that is mainly true. However, you will remember the Miss California/Miss USA contestant who alleged she was UNFARILY attacked because she had quoted our President: answered that she believed marriage shoould be between one man and one woman. She mainly received an UNSYMPATHETIC "hearing" from CNN and the rest of the mainstream media. In contrast, CNN seemed to be quoting notes (as to the San Antonio young woman) diretly wovided by the woman's attorney. No, that is not what this article is mainly about, although it is annyoning that HLN regarded itself as an ADVOCATE in this matter (not at all important, and I am getting tired of beauty contest participants constantly engaging in lawsuits, especially since all I can see they are accomplishing is to kill off what appears to be a dying industry).
Is it wrong, by the way, to say that role models for young women should not gain wieght? Ask Michelle Obama!!!!! But we still have not come to the EVIL--the outrageous, indefenisble evil--of HLN (CNN) in this story.
What is the mainstream media technique when they have an agenda? You should know this one. What they do is create a "VILLAIN" (as they tried to do with poor Peter King on his Congressional hearing about Muslim extremists), and then egage in a PERSONAL ATTACK. In this case, HLN decided to try to make a villain out of the beautry pageant director (name withheld to protect the innocent--a word I use advisedly in this case, as she was the VICTIM of outrageous EVIL by HLN)>
This beautry pageant director is a 61 year old woman. Now you might wonder what HLN could say about a 61 year old woman, who meerly had the somewhat thankless job of being a beauty pageant director. Was she an up-tight, unfair prig? An old prune, with no compassion? Well, I would consider that kind of subjective attack as unfair to the 61 year old woman, and an evil character assassination. But I don't have the EVIL imagination of CNN (more likely the imagination of the young woman's attorney--apparently an evil man himself, if what I suspect is true). Yes, I am morally certain HLN/CNN was fed this evil "information"" by SOME interested person. The breathless HLN/CNN "report" was that this poor 61 year old woman had a CRIMINAL RECORD.
HLN presented this inforatminon as if it were conclusive that this woman should not be running a beauty pageant. Say what? That is both EVIL and ASININE, even if it is true that the woman had a criminal record. But it gets worse (I could never make up people this EVIL). HLN/CNN tried to "check this (irrelevant information) out". They found that a WOMAN OF THE SAME NAME AND AGE (I could never make this up) had a "criminal record", but they could not confrim (really, I could not make this up) whether it was the same woman. Thus, HLN/CNN is willing to try to ruin a woman's life with "information" they have not even verified, and which is NOT RELEVANT (even if true). This is beyond EVIL. I truely hope that Hell exists (having my doubts, since I am an agnostic), becausee it will be Heaven for me to meet these HLN/CNN people in Hell. As usual, my contempt for them knows no bounds.
Doubt my opinion on this? Don't. Quick cut to ELIOT SPITZER. You may not know, since no one watches, but Spitzer has a show on CNN in prime time. What does this have to do with the subject of this article? Oh, come on. You know this one. Spitzer has a CRIMINAL RECORD (no matter what his "rap sheet" may show).
You remember Eliot Spitzer. He USED TO BE governor of New York, and was a prosecuotr prosecuting prostitution rings (and associated organized crime) before that. As governor of New York, responsible for enforcing the laws of New York, Spiter PATRONZIED THE VERY KIND OF PROSTITUTION RING HE HAD FORMERLY PROSECUTED. Yes, Spitzer was froced to RESIGN as governor of New York for this CRIME. It was also a dereliction of duty as the governor of New York. Who would hire a criminal/corrupt "pubic servant" like Spitzer?
CNN. Yes, it was CNN who hired Spitzer aFTER this.
Talk about hypocrisy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HLN and CNN are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. They are willing to try to destroy a poor 61 year onld woman over an UNVERIFIED "criminal record", but they have hired one of the most blatant politican criminals of all time.
What? You say that a person's life is not over once he pays his "debt" to society? That such a person HAS to be able to receive a job, or he will be forced to keep committing crimes because he has no other way to live? Hey, I AGREE WITH YOU. That is why this HLN PERSONAL ATTACK on this 61 year old woman is one of the most EVIL things I have ever seen in "journalism". (The mind bogggles, by the way, at what crimes Spitzer might commit if he had been unable to find an "honest" job. It is lucky he found a non-criminal DISHONEST job--he and CNN being a perfect fit).
Let me be clear. I don't really oppose CNN's hiring of Eliot Spitzer because Spitzer admitted to a crminal act (and corrupt act for a governor). I always thought G. Gordon Liddy (a namesake of mine as to one of those names) was pretty much nuts, and deserved to go to jail for his role in Watergate. But Liddy is an INTERESTING guy. I never listened to h;imregularly, but Liddy had an interesting radio talk show after he got out of prison. John Dean was at least as culpable as Liddy--who called Watergate a "john Dean operation"), and MSNBC used Dean as an "expert" on ETHICS. I am glad someone gave LIddy a chance to present his (interesting) views to the public, desite his "criminal record". I can't say the same abuot John Dean.
Yes, my objections to Dean and Spitzer really have little to do with their "criminal record", and a lot to do with their lack of any intellectual integrity. Oh, I think it is obvius Liddy had intellectual integrity , He just had significant moral blind spots. Now I would be reluctant to hire Liddy for an OBJECTIVE "news" show, or for any network pretending to be some sort of "news" network. The Spitzer hiring showed that CNN is a partisan network. Imagine the CNN reactin if Fox News had hired Liddy for a prime time evening show!!!! But I am gald Liddy got a job, and I thought he was well worth listening to (with many grains of salt). I would have had no problem with Spitzer getting a radio progarm. The CNN hiring of Spitzer was significant because it represented an absolute admission of the PARTISANSHIP of CNNN.
But if CNN is going to hire Spitzer, CNN/HLN has no business acting as if a "criminal record" tainsts someone fFOR LIFE (and "provesa the UNRELATED allegations of a beauty queen).
Q.E.D. CNN/HLN is an eil network spreading evil.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment