April 30, 2005

CAN LIBERALISM SURVIVE DEPTH?:

CNN shifts news focus: New boss stresses a more in-depth approach, akin to archrival Fox News. (MIKE TIERNEY, 04/30/05, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

[I]'s not programs or on-air personnel that [Jon] Klein fixated on throughout an interview Friday. [...]

It's how CNN presents the news.

"Dramatically different, certainly in our prime-time approach," contends Klein, 47, who has done the New York-Atlanta shuttle — here one day, gone the next — most weeks since stepping into the revolving-door job in December.

"When I got here, we were doing just straight newscasts with two-minute-long pieces. The problem with that approach is by [midevening], the public already knows what happened. You've got to go beyond the headlines.

"That's what Fox [News] has been doing — discussing stories that you're already familiar with. Now we've started doing stories in our way, not just by talking about them but reporting them in greater depth."

And, with un-CNN-like techniques. One reporter, in a story on a device that shocks the body with an electrical charge, strapped on the belt and absorbed a few thousand volts.

Another, following up on the drowning of a prop plane pilot, donned a survival suit and, accompanied by the Coast Guard, flopped into the lake — where he delivered his report.

"There is a big difference between that and a clown," Klein says. "Reporters must be less stiff, less imperious, less above-it-all, less condescending. More involved and passionate in the stories they do."

Klein's gospel: Pounce on a story and explore it from every angle.


In-depth like Fox? And here we thought Fox was dumbing down the news for its Neanderthal viewers...

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 30, 2005 11:20 AM
Comments

Seems like you misread something here, Orrin:

"That's what Fox [News] has been doing discussing stories that you're already familiar with. Now we've started doing stories in our way, not just by talking about them but reporting them in greater depth."

It doesn't say that Fox discusses stories in depth, but that CNN will ("doing stories in our way").

Posted by: creeper at April 30, 2005 1:04 PM

geez, no wonder you misread Evolution so badly.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 1:11 PM

i read that as "fox discusses stories in depth, and now we will also discuss them in depth, but from our perspective". and they say bush has troubles speaking clearly (he does, but so do most people, regardless of political affiliation).

Posted by: cjm at April 30, 2005 1:19 PM

If the quote had said "Now we've started doing stories in Fox's way, not just by talking about them but reporting them in greater depth" instead of "Now we've started doing stories in our way, not just by talking about them but reporting them in greater depth", then you'd have a point.

"geez, no wonder you misread Evolution so badly."

Wasn't it you who couldn't get ID straight just the other day?

Posted by: creeper at April 30, 2005 1:32 PM

Semantics aside, given Klein's background, what he's probably really trying to take from Fox is their "attitude" as opposed to actually taking any desire to be more balanced towards conservative views. What he's going to get out of that is smarmy liberal show hosts in the Keith Olbermann vein, or Aaron Brown on steroids. This may make CNN's core audience happier, but in the end won't win them any new viewers.

Posted by: John at April 30, 2005 1:42 PM

creeper:

It wouldn't seem real hard to grasp that intelligent design involves the notion that the world around us is the product of intelligent design.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 1:49 PM

"It wouldn't seem real hard to grasp that intelligent design involves the notion that the world around us is the product of intelligent design."

Not only is that a circular definition, but it's not what ID claims.

Posted by: creeper at April 30, 2005 2:09 PM

Of course it's circular, all explanations of evolution are. What does your version of I. D. claim?

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 2:35 PM

"Of course it's circular, all explanations of evolution are."

Actually, the modern theory of evolution is not a circular explanation.

"What does your version of I. D. claim?"

I don't know if it's "my" version, but as I understand it, ID claims that life on Earth was created by an intelligent designer. It's not the same as a human being today inventing, say, the shower curtain ring. An intelligent design created by a human today is not the same as Intelligent Design.

If the subtleties of this escape you, ask around - maybe there's an informative site about ID somewhere.

Posted by: creeper at April 30, 2005 3:02 PM

I.D. does not claim an Designer. It claims intelligent design.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 3:06 PM

It claims that intelligent design implies a designer, does it not?

Otherwise nature could have resulted in what IDers perceive as intelligent design, no?

Posted by: creeper at April 30, 2005 3:09 PM

No, it's agnostic on whether there's a Designer or multiple designers. The dispute is over intelligence vs Nature.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 3:12 PM

Okay, ID is agnostic as to whether the Designer is one entity or more than one, but of course it claims there is at least one designer, which rather obviously includes the claim that there is a designer.

"The dispute is over intelligence vs Nature."

Actually, the dispute is over design vs. nature. Since nature features intelligent entities in abundance, I think I am starting to see where the source of your confusion lies.

Posted by: creeper at April 30, 2005 3:55 PM

creeper:

Yes, precisely right existence demonstrates evidence in favor of intelligent design.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 4:07 PM

"Yes, precisely right existence demonstrates evidence in favor of intelligent design."

A non sequitur that goes nowhere. Keep on flaunting your confusion, Orrin.

Posted by: creeper at April 30, 2005 6:15 PM

Non sequitir? I was agreeing with you: "Okay, ID is agnostic as to whether the Designer is one entity or more than one, but of course it claims there is at least one designer."

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 6:55 PM

Is everybody here nuts?
Fox only has one prime time news show, "Special Report with Brit Hume" (arguably the very best daily news show, cable or broadcast).
Everything else is pure crap.
Faux populist O'Reilly who is continually trying to convince us he's smart enough to know what he's talking about. Not!
H&C Dumb from the Right versus Dumber from the Left in a historic shout out, total lack of information emanating from either.
Then there's Greta, outta work once Michael Jackson is in jail and Peterson gets the San Quentin needle.
There's no news there, not that the competitors fare any better, IMHO, well, actually, said opinion has nothing "H" in it.

Posted by: Mike Daley at April 30, 2005 9:12 PM

Mike,

The Eric Burns media show on Fox is quite good, although it is rushed at 30 minutes. It usually puts Howard Kurtz to shame.

Posted by: jim hamlen at April 30, 2005 9:38 PM

John Gibson & Ron Insana are excellent.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 9:46 PM

Jim, oj,
I won't argue the merits of these shows with you, but, they are not news shows! Both are opinion/commentary shows, Gibson by far the 'most", Burns is a once a week opinion show, hardly news and, oj, I'm sorry I don't recall Ron Insama's show.
For news, I'll use the internet any and every day. After watching "Special Report with Brit Hume".
Mike

Posted by: Mike Daley at April 30, 2005 9:55 PM

What's the difference between the two?

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 10:00 PM

"Non sequitir? I was agreeing with you: "Okay, ID is agnostic as to whether the Designer is one entity or more than one, but of course it claims there is at least one designer."

1. To which "Yes, precisely right existence demonstrates evidence in favor of intelligent design." is a non sequitur.

2. You were not agreeing with it. On the contrary: "I.D. does not claim an Designer. It claims intelligent design. "

Posted by: creeper at May 1, 2005 12:10 AM

Yes, you'd just said there needn't be one Designer in I.D.

Posted by: oj at May 1, 2005 12:14 AM

So?

Posted by: creeper at May 1, 2005 12:26 AM

ID claims that there needs to be at least one Designer, which obviously includes the claim that there is a Designer, which contradicts your statement that "I.D. does not claim an Designer".

Posted by: creeper at May 1, 2005 12:31 AM

That was the point under discussion and we reached agreement on it.

Posted by: oj at May 1, 2005 12:32 AM

Fine, you changed your mind, but "Yes, precisely right existence demonstrates evidence in favor of intelligent design" is still a non sequitur that goes nowhere.

Posted by: creeper at May 1, 2005 12:35 AM

I'll try once more:

It doesn't claim an Designer. It says there is intelligent design, whether that design was/is done by an Designer, a desgner, or designers or Designers.

Your mistake is to insist that I.D. is Creationism and dependent on God.

Posted by: oj at May 1, 2005 12:37 AM

It's because we see intelligent design that we know there is/are (a) being(s) intelligent designing.

Posted by: oj at May 1, 2005 12:42 AM

"It doesn't claim an Designer. It says there is intelligent design, whether that design was/is done by an Designer, a desgner, or designers or Designers."

It wasn't clear to me that by Designer with a capital D you were excluding any non-God entity. Of course ID claims at least one designer, but is agnostic on the number and nature of the designer(s).

"Your mistake is to insist that I.D. is Creationism and dependent on God."

I don't insist on that at all. Little Green Men appear to be well within the realm of possibility for IDers - as well as for you, with your belief in Panspermia.

"It's because we see intelligent design that we know there is/are (a) being(s) intelligent designing."

That's a rather general statement that applies to the claims made by ID (which for various reasons perceives some aspects of nature as intelligent design) as well as a trivial non-ID observation that when we see a car, we deduce that an intelligent being designed the car.


"Yes, precisely right existence demonstrates evidence in favor of intelligent design" is still a non sequitur that goes nowhere.

Posted by: creeper at May 1, 2005 1:39 AM

Of course it's not clear. Since they have nothing to say about who's designing there's no way to know what the entity or entities are.

If you don't think a car implies intelligent design then I can't help you.

Posted by: oj at May 1, 2005 9:22 AM

"If you don't think a car implies intelligent design then I can't help you."

Of course it implies intelligent design - since it was obviously designed by a number of intelligent human beings - engineers and scientists.

What a car does not imply is Intelligent Design - the belief that life itself was designed by an intelligent entity.

Someday you may be able to get that straight, but in the meantime you're just being obtuse - willfully, it seems.

Posted by: creeper at May 1, 2005 9:29 AM

"Your mistake is to insist that I.D. is Creationism and dependent on God."

While I didn't insist on that, I do suspect that the proportion of IDers that claims life was created by aliens from outer space is rather small.

Posted by: creeper at May 1, 2005 9:55 AM

It was Created by God. Intelligent Design doesn't posit God.

Posted by: oj at May 1, 2005 10:04 AM

Yes, that which we can see is intelligently designed suggests the possibility, or even likelihood, of an intelligent designer or designers

Posted by: oj at May 1, 2005 10:05 AM

"Intelligent Design doesn't posit God."

That's what I said.

However, ID does posit God as a possibility.

Posted by: creeper at May 1, 2005 10:38 AM

"Yes, that which we can see is intelligently designed suggests the possibility, or even likelihood, of an intelligent designer or designers"

The likelihood would depend on the presence or absence of alternative explanations.

Posted by: creeper at May 1, 2005 10:40 AM

Are you at war now with even the possibility?

Posted by: oj at May 1, 2005 10:42 AM

"Are you at war now with even the possibility?"

Not at all, as I think I have pointed out before - and as even my preceding comment made clear. I'm just describing what ID claims, since you insist on conflating terms.

Posted by: creeper at May 1, 2005 11:02 AM

No theory can disclaim it.

Posted by: oj at May 1, 2005 11:11 AM

No theory can disclaim the existence of God? I'll assume you mean no scientific theory can disclaim the existence of God. I'd say that's true, since it is impossible to prove a negative.

On the other hand, God's existence has never been proven either. Science as a whole appears to be agnostic on the subject.

Posted by: creeper at May 1, 2005 11:15 AM
« THE NEARLY SENSUOUS NUT: | Main | GIVE US A KING: »