I've been watching more TV this morning than usual. I've been watching FOX and CNN.
CNN: Shootings in Isla Vista, California
FOX: Interviewing two senators who are in Ukraine to observe the elections (which I think is, frankly, insulting to Ukrainians, but what the heck...)
CNN: Shootings in Isla Vista, California
FOX: Review of latest VA findings and conversations about the best way out of the mess; with some worthwhile ideas
CNN: Shootings in Isla Vista, California
FOX: Marine stuck in Mexico with nothing happening to get him OUT
CNN: Shootings in Isla Vista, California
FOX: Memorial Day observances
CNN: Shootings in Isla Vista, California
Three weeks ago, it was CNN: Malaysian Air Disaster, FOX: whatever news was happening at the time you turned the TV on.
Is it CNN avoiding the fact that little's been done to fix the VA for lo, these many years, particularly since Obama was informed when he came into office and promised to clean things up?
Is it CNN avoiding the fact that a Marine hasn't been quickly got out of Mexico, particularly since many Mexican officials themselves want him out?
Is it CNN avoiding talking about Ukraine because there haven't been strong enough sanctions to help Ukraine from Putin? ....or maybe because Isla Vista's 'GUNman' is a better story?
Wassup, folks?
Z
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Story saturation is CNNs business model.
They used to cover all the news, as do most channels, saturation's happened fairly recently.
The 'news' also used to actually cover the news....instead of devoting so much airtime to allow the two major parties disseminate their talking points under the guise of debate.
My point is clear in my post, but thanks for that input....
I am one who still longs for "News at 5, film at 11"
They all need something to FILL the 24/7 disaster; selling airtime for the $$$; it's more that and far, far less about allowing the two parties anything...it's SELLING TIME....
Which creates the ludicrous and constant discussions on things most don't even know about.
Today, CNN's push is "the MOTIVATION". Before they knew who the killer was.
Please, I'm talking about CNN and I KNOW FOX and MSNBC sometimes do the same thing...
I believe CI is correct. CNN used to do news (how many decades ago?),and I always checked the news on CNN for anything important.I stopped watching them when they hired Judy Woodward.
Z: I just turned on CNN to see what they are up to.
Breaking News On CNN: "We are prepared to name the person responsible for the shooting is Elliot Rogers".
It is now 4:25 PM in Atlanta, and I heard the name of Fox News several hours ago.
Who do these people think they are kidding?
Bob, but I think you're both incorrect.
I'm talking ALL DAY LONG. ...no 'saturation' of a story...ALL DAAAAY LOONNNNG.
It hurt their numbers so badly with the Malaysian thing (tho folks said it raised them..and might have at first) so badly that they're BELOW MSNBC now.
No, CNN has done NEWS. But, now it's hiding from the news.
Z: Sorry if you thought I was challenging you. Since I don't watch CNN I was not aware of their programming.
BTW, they are still on it. They are down to guns, now. It appears that CA has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.
"It appears that CA has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation."
This all has to be fiction then. Gun control legislation is supposed to stop this sort of event. /sarc
Odd CI, the family reported the videos to the police and the interviewed the perp but "found no history of firearms". Duh!! He bought the piece at a gun loon show.
No record of the sale.
They sell gun loons now?
Well Ducky, it seems that you're not shy from employing the myth of the 'gun show loophole'.
What, you think Fox News would cover another shooting and have expose their asinine anti-gun control position?
democrat anti-gun agenda, democrat propaganda machine
Okay kid, this guy publishes videos that any rational person would consider threats.
He has a long standing diagnosis of mental illness.
Cops say there is no "history with guns".
Soon after he blows away 7 people and injures 7 more.
Where did he get the gun? Asking that question is an "anti gun agenda"?
Damn, you are a serious loon.
There's nothing wrong with asking the question. There are serious problems with curtailing a Constitutionally protected right to the point where lawful transactions between private citizens without the blessing of the State, is prohibited.
To support that, would make one a Statist loon.
Ducky, you're confused if you think that upholding the Constitutionally protected rights of the 2nd Amendment is the proprietary realm of the tea party. I suppose we can chalk that up to your statement being a default retort of the left.
You're also confused as to the very nature of the 2nd Amendment. As evidenced by the guiding and foundational documents of our national origin, as well as the archived correspondence of our Founders....the Militia is the People.
This fact is also upheld by no small number of SCOTUS and lower court rulings. If you're unhappy that the citizenry may arm itself for any number of reasons, you're free to attempt to repeal the Amendment.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This is supposed to be the verbatim text of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Notice that it does NOT specify that a person has to be a member of a militia, but that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Because a person has the right to bear arms, that means that when a militia is necesary, there will be people with guns to populate that militia.
There are no specific or implied restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers had just gone through about eight years of a bloody war with England, and felt very sure that the right to keep and bear arms was necessary for a free society.
Perhaps the most convincing case during the Revolutionary War was the British defeat at Kings Mountain. The Americans were purely militia with their own weapons.
CI, a perpetrator of a felony is no longer allowed to on a gun. Look at all the non-violent situations that are classified felonies. All part of chipping away at a person's right to protect themselves.
It could Easily have been written to exclude gun ownership only for people who have committed violent crime felonies and That I'd be Ok with.
Nothing happens overnight - they chip away at society until they get what they want. Governmental evil/communism has plenty of patience.
Look what they're doing now. Outlawing the manufacture of lead ammo because lead in the ground is now considered dangerous by the unbelievably retarded and evil EPA.
There are things happening today in the category of taking away people's American freedoms that would have had people marching on DC with guns in 1960. Literally.
In 40 years, we'll have a collection of idiots like duck who have begged government to take their freedoms and self-sufficeny away to the point they'll be calling 911 when there isn't any toilet paper on the shelf and wondering how things got so hellhole-ish. They'll blame it on us of course. Man I hate libtards. We have people calling 911 Today who say McDonald's is out of big macs.
It's like a feeding frenzy of ignorance and losers. The only reason we don't have it in our face 24/7 is because the government sends them enough money to survive and keeps them on the IV drip. To a point, there is Some value in not having home invasion bodies piling up in front of my house.
"Nothing happens overnight - they chip away at society until they get what they want."
Concur. This is evidenced by the gun control lobby's clownish attempt to set precedence, by attempting to ban scary looking items that they cannot define the use of.....and their obfuscating rhetoric. "Gun control" hadn't proven palatable, so they shifted to "gun safety"....though ironically, they eschew widespread firearm safety training....as it does not compliment their campaign of demonizing inanimate objects.
Bob, and I'm sorry to have reacted as if I felt challenged...
Yes, I heard that today, too, about California's gun laws.
of course, they regularly stop Latinos for driving infractions and will find their cars loaded with guns and ammo, but the laws don't apply to the illegals, do they.
They're only disarming those who'd have to fight against La Raza, etc, right!?
Ducky, when you can stop the ridiculous TEA BAGGER JAB I might not delete you. Thanks!
actually, there's talk about someone having bought the gun for the perp.
Libmann. FOX covers THE NEWS.
I wish the liberal channels would, too. What a relief that would be...maybe people like you'd be better informed?
Z, I'll bet the libs could tell us all about the mountains of speculation regards MH370 but little else.
"actually, there's talk about someone having bought the gun for the perp."
Yep, from the LA Times:
"They found three guns, and all were legally purchased and registered to him."
There you have it - gun registration kills. Too soon?
CI...I heard on CNN that the thought was that people had bought him the guns and they'd be in HUGE trouble when found.
Thanks for the update.
I'm reading now that he STABBED 3 and shot 3? STABBED? Man, this guy was REALLY SICK.
Imagine his poor family? You lose your son and realize how sick he was and that he took other lives? That is devastating.
Kid, OH, ya..CNN watchers are TOTALLY up to date on the Malaysian airplane, TRUST ME!
PING PING PING PING!
Post a Comment