CNN calls Dallas Gunman Courageous and Brave

[*bfine32*]

You cannot make this stuff up

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-anchor-refers-to-dallas-gunmans-actions-as-courageous-and-brave/

Quote:“It was very courageous and brave, if not crazy as well, to open fire on the police headquarters,

[Stewy]

(06-13-2015, 08:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You cannot make this stuff up

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-anchor-refers-to-dallas-gunmans-actions-as-courageous-and-brave/

Ah how i long for the days of ugly news people who were smart and savy.  All you need to be on the news is good looking these days.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-13-2015, 08:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You cannot make this stuff up

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-anchor-refers-to-dallas-gunmans-actions-as-courageous-and-brave/

It seems like we truly are living in a bizarro world.  Courageous and brave?  For pulling an attack on police HQ?

Now, I'm starting to understand the whole "prepper" movement.

[grampahol]

Wait, what about the woman who left the loaded gun in her purse and her kid got ahold of it and shot him/herself dead? Surely she's brave and courageous. . Well careless and extraordinarily stupid, but brave and courageous at least in CNNese..

[Penn]

(06-13-2015, 08:42 PM)Stewy Wrote: Ah how i long for the days of ugly news people who were smart and savy.  All you need to be on the news is good looking these days.

If you are indeed old enough to remember this I really need to know, how old are you?

I was discussing the song by Don Henley called "Dirty Laundry", which explicitly states, "I just have to look good, I don't have to be clear", with a few people some time ago.  One of the people involved in the conversation commented that the late 70's began the whole sensationalist approach to news which is why that song was so relevant at that time (early 80's).

One of the impressive history buffs involved in the conversation pointed out TV just picked up what already existed in print media when TV journalists first began.  He used a phrase called "yellow journalism".  If I recall correct it began somewhere around the beginning of the 1900's or late 1800's and one of the people involved in the change to less respectable journalism was the namesake of the Pulitzer Prize (yeah, from the beginning of that prize it was as as much fluff as the Nobel has become).

My personal belief is it goes in cycles.  The sensationalist approach gains steam, people get sick of it and the media (either print of TV) adapts but the yellow journalism soon resurfaces.  I've been waiting so long now for people to want real news again I have begun to question that theory.

[Benton]

(06-13-2015, 08:42 PM)Stewy Wrote: Ah how i long for the days of ugly news people who were smart and savy.  All you need to be on the news is good looking these days.

And therein lies a lot of the problem. Newscasters don't have to be smart, they just have to be able to: a- read; b- be attractive; c- be persistent (the majority of people you ask for a comment will decline, so you have to just keep asking).

As far as this, meh. Going by the definitions of the words, he probably was. Only an idiot would assume they can open fire in front of police and not get hurt. And that's what the words mean, a willingness to accept pain, death or harm. Was it a bad choice of words? Yes, because, as a society, we've used "courage" and "bravery" in pro-war propaganda since at least WWI. We equate a willingness to accept pain, death or harm as being patriotic.

Of course, that's an assumption. He could have been deluded and not expected anything bad to happen. Which is why adjectives like that should not have been used, but that goes back into the lack of training and intelligence in most news agencies now. 

[RoyleRedlegs]

(06-13-2015, 08:42 PM)Stewy Wrote: Ah how i long for the days of ugly news people who were smart and savy.  All you need to be on the news is good looking these days.

(06-14-2015, 01:08 AM)Benton Wrote: And therein lies a lot of the problem. Newscasters don't have to be smart, they just have to be able to: a- read; b- be attractive; c- be persistent (the majority of people you ask for a comment will decline, so you have to just keep asking).

As far as this, meh. Going by the definitions of the words, he probably was. Only an idiot would assume they can open fire in front of police and not get hurt. And that's what the words mean, a willingness to accept pain, death or harm. Was it a bad choice of words? Yes, because, as a society, we've used "courage" and "bravery" in pro-war propaganda since at least WWI. We equate a willingness to accept pain, death or harm as being patriotic.

Of course, that's an assumption. He could have been deluded and not expected anything bad to happen. Which is why adjectives like that should not have been used, but that goes back into the lack of training and intelligence in most news agencies now. 

[magikod]

wow...

[treee]

Well it's CNN. I mean, c'mon.

[BoomerFan]

Terrible newsperson needs a thesaurus badly. CNN is pretty bad in a number of respects but I doubt that choice of words really reflects the networks' position or anything. And anyone who thinks it does is playing the "Gotchya!" game. Still, I totally agree the newscaster is incompetent and that *is* CNN's fault (and they have others).

[Belsnickel]

What the actual hell?

Apparently I didn't hit post last night on my iPad. This would've been here about 8 hours sooner.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(06-14-2015, 07:18 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What the actual hell?

Apparently I didn't hit post last night on my iPad. This would've been here about 8 hours sooner.

Can't perform basic message board tasks...this won't look good on the Mod-review 

[SteelCitySouth]

(06-15-2015, 12:42 AM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Can't perform basic message board tasks...this won't look good on the Mod-review 

Yeah, well he clearly has a career option with CNN (or any of the 24 hour BS stations)