CNN's X Follow up...

[SquiggyFM]

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN NOV 27 2005 17:05:23 ET XXXXX

CNN OPERATOR FIRED AFTER SUGGESTING 'X' OVER CHENEY WAS 'FREE SPEECH'

A CNN switchboard operator was fired over the holiday -- after the operator claimed the 'X' placed over Vice President's Dick Cheney's face was "free speech!"

"We did it just to make a point. Tell them to stop lying, Bush and Cheney," the CNN operator said to a caller. "Bring our soldiers home."

The caller initially phoned the network to complain about the all-news channel flashing an "X' over Cheney as he gave an address live from Washington.

"Was it not freedom of speech? Yes or No?" the CNN operator explained.

"If you don't like it, don't watch."

Laurie Goldberg, Senior Vice President for Public Relations with CNN, said in a release:

"A Turner switchboard operator was fired today after we were alerted to a conversation the operator had with a caller in which the operator lost his temper and expressed his personal views -- behavior that was totally inappropriate. His comments did not reflect the views of CNN. We are reaching out to the caller and expressing our deep regret to her and apologizing that she did not get the courtesy entitled to her. "

_______________________________________________________

Comments?

 

[954]

> CNN OPERATOR FIRED AFTER SUGGESTING 'X' OVER CHENEY WAS
> 'FREE SPEECH'
>
> A CNN switchboard operator was fired over the holiday --
> after the operator claimed the 'X' placed over Vice
> President's Dick Cheney's face was "free speech!"
>
> "We did it just to make a point. Tell them to stop lying,
> Bush and Cheney," the CNN operator said to a caller. "Bring
> our soldiers home."

"We" suggests the board op was in in it. Is this true?

Or did "we" mean that it was company policy?

Neither would surprise me.

Maybe next, Fox News will superimpose "LIAR" over the faces of
folks like Hillary Clinton and the Chappaquiddick Kid. Or
"BIGOT" over the faces of Al Sharpton, Looie Farrakkkhan,
Jesse Jackson, Robert Byrd, Pat Robertson (yeah, fat chance)
and so on.

> The caller initially phoned the network to complain about
> the all-news channel flashing an "X' over Cheney as he gave
> an address live from Washington.
> "Was it not freedom of speech? Yes or No?" the CNN operator
> explained.
> "If you don't like it, don't watch."

I won't.

73s from 954


<P ID="signature">______________
<center><font color=green size="+1">South Florida Radio Pages -- November Radio News</font></center></P>

 

[TheOriginalLarry]

Compare to what Cheney has gotten away with, an "X" over his face is hardly worth punishing somebody over. I'd actually promote the swithcboard operator and the video board-op. My opinion.....



> XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN NOV 27 2005 17:05:23 ET XXXXX
>
> CNN OPERATOR FIRED AFTER SUGGESTING 'X' OVER CHENEY WAS
> 'FREE SPEECH'
>
> A CNN switchboard operator was fired over the holiday --
> after the operator claimed the 'X' placed over Vice
> President's Dick Cheney's face was "free speech!"
>
> "We did it just to make a point. Tell them to stop lying,
> Bush and Cheney," the CNN operator said to a caller. "Bring
> our soldiers home."
>
> The caller initially phoned the network to complain about
> the all-news channel flashing an "X' over Cheney as he gave
> an address live from Washington.
>
> "Was it not freedom of speech? Yes or No?" the CNN operator
> explained.
>
> "If you don't like it, don't watch."
>
> Laurie Goldberg, Senior Vice President for Public Relations
> with CNN, said in a release:
>
> "A Turner switchboard operator was fired today after we were
> alerted to a conversation the operator had with a caller in
> which the operator lost his temper and expressed his
> personal views -- behavior that was totally inappropriate.
> His comments did not reflect the views of CNN. We are
> reaching out to the caller and expressing our deep regret to
> her and apologizing that she did not get the courtesy
> entitled to her. "
>
> _______________________________________________________
>
> Comments?
>
<P ID="signature">______________
K-BONG....CONTINUOUS HITS!.....

[email protected]


</P>

 

[SamBuca]

> My
> opinion.....

EXACTLY. That's why he was canned. No one gives a damn about your opinion or his. It's NEWS...FACTUAL reporting. Not doing an asinine stunt like that.

And no, I won't respond to the upcoming BS poking fun at the phrase "factual reporting."<P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[raccoonradio]

I already mentioned this on Friday...guess Drudge is putting it out now.
See National TV board:

Call to CNN: Intentional (?) X over Cheney (operator fired!) - raccoonradio 11/25/05 12:51 PM (266)

> "A Turner switchboard operator

My guess is they hire outsiders to handle phone calls like this, but it was inexcusable for this guy to inject his own opinions and lose his temper.


> His comments did not reflect the views of CNN.<P ID="signature">______________

</P>

 

[raccoonradio]

> Compare to what Cheney has gotten away with, an "X" over his
> face is hardly worth punishing somebody over. I'd actually
> promote the swithcboard operator and the video board-op. My
> opinion.....

...is a good indication why Democrats have lost 7 of the last 10
Presidential elections <P ID="signature">______________

</P>

 

[raccoonradio]

> > My
> > opinion.....
>
> EXACTLY. That's why he was canned. No one gives a damn
> about your opinion or his. It's NEWS...FACTUAL reporting.
> Not doing an asinine stunt like that.

News of the Future**: February 2, 2009

Viewers across the nation were outraged during Fox News Channel's broadcast
of a speech by Vice President Barack Obama. An "X" was repeatedly placed
over his face. "This is outrageous," said President Hillary Clinton.

Imagine THAT happening. What would the reaction be?

FNC is smart enough NOT to do something like that.
CNN, or at least someone AT CNN, was dumb enough to DO it.

**--remember when they used to do "News of the Future" on "Laugh In"?
Once, the audience laughed when Dan Rowan started reading an item
from the future: "President Ronald Reagan..." Imagine...that guy
would never be able to get elected, eh?

<P ID="signature">______________

</P>

 

[SquiggyFM]

> Viewers across the nation were outraged during Fox News
> Channel's broadcast
> of a speech by Vice President Barack Obama. An "X" was
> repeatedly placed
> over his face. "This is outrageous," said President Hillary
> Clinton.

That was my point when this semi-blew up earlier this week. Replace CNN with FNC and Dick with anyone of the myriad of Democratic hardliners and you'll see why this is a big deal.

Also, if FNC did this, every newsoutlet in the nation would be talking about it.

Where's doc and Philip now? Eating crow? Ha ha...just kiddin', like to hear your opinions guys.

 

[HomerJay]

> > Viewers across the nation were outraged during Fox News
> > Channel's broadcast
> > of a speech by Vice President Barack Obama. An "X" was
> > repeatedly placed
> > over his face. "This is outrageous," said President
> Hillary
> > Clinton.
>
> That was my point when this semi-blew up earlier this week.
> Replace CNN with FNC and Dick with anyone of the myriad of
> Democratic hardliners and you'll see why this is a big deal.
>
>
> Also, if FNC did this, every newsoutlet in the nation would
> be talking about it.
>
> Where's doc and Philip now? Eating crow? Ha ha...just
> kiddin', like to hear your opinions guys.
>
It was a technical glitch...what, one fraction of a second? Come on, it doesn't matter if it was CNN, FNC or anyone else, it was nothing being blown up by a gossip-mongering sleaze peddler.

 

[RF_Insider]

> Imagine THAT happening. What would the reaction be?

Hummm...

First, you'd have to imagine that FNC would even provide live coverage of a Democratic vice-presidential address. So we'd have to assume there were no missing blondes in the Caribbean or elsewhere that month. OK, I can do that.

So now let's assume that during this address, a couple of frames of an "X" flit across the screen for 1/15 of a second each. Since it's FNC, we can safely assume that the event would NOT merit a "DEVELOPING! MUST CREDIT DRUDGE REPORT" from beneath the Porkpie Hat of Truth. (And flashing rooftop sirens, too. Gotta have the flashing rooftop sirens.)

Without the Drudge Report peddling the story, we can guess that you're not going to see Daily Kos or Atrios trying to call the FNC news desk with tape rolling to ask them about it. (Though, to make this a real comparison to this goofy story, they'd need to be calling FX or maybe Fox Sports instead.) But let's say that they do, and that they get some call center droid on the other end to say something nasty about Hillary while they're on the phone, after which they spend the cash to distribute a breathless news release saying that millions of concerned Americans have been calling Fox to complain, and calling on, um, Halliburton and KBR to investigate. They'd be immediately dismissed as loonies, and the story would die there. (OK - MAYBE it would get mentioned the next day on Air America, but as so many posters here have explained ad nauseam, nobody listens to Air America, so that doesn't count, right?)

Here's where we next have to suspend disbelief. We now have to believe that the next day, FNC would put someone on the air to explain how it had all been a technical gaffe, and to illustrate how it happened, and to - yeah, I know, stop laughing - apologize.

If the story didn't die there, anyone still flogging it at that point would be dismissed as a wingnut by the 99.999% of America that doesn't stay up all day and night looking for even the slimmest evidence of media bias, and would be roundly ignored. (Especially by the posters on the R-I Off the Air board, who'd be spinning furiously to explain how it was most certainly an accident and couldn't possibly be interpreted as reflecting poorly on Fox News, which we all know would NEVER be "that stupid.")

Yeah, that IS a good analogy. Thanks!

^RFI^

 

[954]

FNC: "missing blondes in the Caribbean"

> > Imagine THAT happening. What would the reaction be?
>
> First, you'd have to imagine that FNC would even provide
> live coverage of a Democratic vice-presidential address. So
> we'd have to assume there were no missing blondes in the
> Caribbean or elsewhere that month. OK, I can do that.

ROTFL!

That was the funniest part. Downhill from there.

You may want top look up "concise" or "beating a dead horse."

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
Have You Seen <font color='#aabbcc' size='+1'>South Florida Radio History</font></P>

 

[dampier]

The "X" Files: Lies, Mysteries and Fiction

It's amazing that nonsense like this results in actual web stories and accusations, and "facts" claimed and then reprinted without ever bothering to check whether it is true or not. So I spent some time this afternoon on the phone.

Lie #1: Drudge & Right Wing Blogs Claim "Repeated X's Flashed Over Cheney."

"At 11:04:45 AM ET Monday CNN was airing Vice President Dick Cheney's speech live from the American Enterprise Institute in Washington -- when a large black 'X' repeatedly flashed over the vice president's face!

The 'X' over Cheney's face appeared each time less than a second, creating an odd subliminal effect."

When the story first broke, the claim was that Cheney's face was repeatedly covered with X's. Drudge claimed subliminal effects, others claimed it was occuring repeatedly and barely visible.

Fact #1: It flashed once during an inconsequential moment of Cheney's speech after he stated he was a congressman for the minority Republican party at the time. It wasn't subliminal at all - it was plainly visible and happened once.

Lie #2: It had to be intentional.

Fact #2: Based on the text on-screen and CNN's explanation, we learn the text was a part of the video hardware switching system that had the problem. Technical faults have happened throughout the history of broadcasting and will certainly happen again. The -ONLY- reason this is an issue is that right wing blogs went nutty about it. Magically, a mysterious claim that CNN's switchboard is telling people it was intentional and that we all need to tell Cheney to "stop lying" then shows up on the same blog sites claiming it was intentional.

Mystery #1: CNN fired an operator for arguing with a caller who complained (and also recorded the call.)

Fact #3: It's amazing how this story has propagated all over the blogs and right wing "news sites." In fact, it's propagated everywhere EXCEPT at CNN. I called CNN's public relations division and they don't know a thing about this "news release." In fact, it's yet to appear on any of the company's own sites that I can find, despite a blizzard of press releases on every other topic. So apparently CNN issues news releases for right wing blog sites over the phone but not in print?

In fact, the history of the first "news release" I could find originated at a blog site called Stop the ACLU. Originally, the author claimed they called and were told by Laurie Goldberg that the operator had been fired. On another site, a "news release" then appeared that has yet to be found on US Newswire, Time Warner's corporate site, or CNN. The "news release" text has varied from site to site. Some repeated the second hand comments from the Stop the ACLU site as actual quotations from Goldberg.

Mystery #2: Was the call even real?

Fact #4: Team Hollywood was apparently the source of the original recording which was passed out to eager right wing sites who avidly posted it, hyped it, and played telephone game with it, blowing what was ridiculous into even the MORE ridiculous. The problem? Team Hollywood issued a strange press release claiming responsibility for the recording, along with a lot of other bizarre claims about things like the trilateral commission. Their last prank was claims that they were being targeted by al-Qaeda for writing a book of secrets of al-Qaeda. Team Hollywood is a "marketing buzz" group. They succeed when they manage to get into the mainstream press. Other groups that have done stuff like this include the "Yes Men" and Artmark.

In fact, the only reports about this "news release" are crossposts of crossposts between conservative blog sites. No mainstream media organization is reporting this story.

The bottom line here is that nobody should be accepting these Drudge and blog reports as authentic when nobody else, including CNN itself, is providing any authentication. Having someone claim they called CNN and spoke to Ms. Goldberg and then posted it while no one else can confirm it independently is a major red light. Imagine that. Someone writes an unconfirmed quote on a blog site. The bizarre press release from Team Hollywood only adds more questions.

It would not surprise me at all if this call turns out to be a hoax. Until someone can show me a printed press release from the CNN or TW site, call me unconvinced. Even if all of the claims were true, having a low level switchboard operator be used to demonstrate that CNN did such a thing intentionally doesn't wash, unless the switchboard people get invites to the supersecret liberal media conspiracy agenda meetings.

I think most of the readers here are smart enough to not take everything written on a blog site as the gospel truth, especially before it can be verified by someone other than the person who wrote the original story.