CNN's Credibility Hits A New Low

Bah. I watched the entire thing. McMahon was as smarmy, eluding, and blame-shifting as ever. I loved how he claimed that they instituted their drug screening program NOT because of any outside pressure, but because "it was the right thing to do."

Uh huh. Yeah. That and the fact that there was about to be a Congressional investigation into his organization regarding illegal steroid use (again). He did this to get the heat off his back.

His main wrestlers offered up the same programmed answers they always do when this issue comes up.

edited: Okay, I watched the footage and that is some sketchy editing on CNN's part.

As blacbird expressed, given CNN's other segments, this doesn't come as much of a surprise.

I can't stand Vince McMahon nor his ethically reprehensible tactics, but having the WWE record the interview as smart insurance on his part.

The sport is fake, and yet we're questioning CNN's credibility here?

Hey, come on, this is a network that features such luminaries as Glenn Beck and Nancy Grace. And Lou Dobbs, the only man on TV "news" who can compete with Bill Oh'Really? for the Olympic Gold in Smugness. And you're disturbed about something bad said about pro rasslin'?

caw

blacbird said:

Hey, come on, this is a network that features such luminaries as Glenn Beck and Nancy Grace. And Lou Dobbs, the only man on TV "news" who can compete with Bill Oh'Really? for the Olympic Gold in Smugness. And you're disturbed about something bad said about pro rasslin'?

Click to expand...

Yep, that CNN is a far out, far left outfit.

last week i acquired broadcast television in my home for the first time in years. the only channel we pick up is pbs, and i'm pleasantly surprised by their programming, which includes bbc news. between bbc, npr and the nyt, i remain baffled by the popularity of organizations that provide news wrought with shady journalism or open bias, by the fact that the nyt and the washington post are in decline, that support for public programming has been in steady decline, and that the bullshit remains in greatest demand.

a moment of silence for the sad state of popular american journalism in general.

...

Voyager said:

I don't give a shit how fake the sport is or what you think of anyone involved. Deliberately twisting people's words to get a sound bite is as shady as a "reputable" news agency can get.

Click to expand...

But they're not twisting his words. He said that statement as he said the other. You can argue that they could have played the entire clip -or both clips, but the taunt the guy makes, "I'm not gonna say never and you can't prove it" is still arguably the more important quote. Which makes it a question of editing, and not deliberately twisting anything. I believe you're completely off the mark here.

Voyager said:

My issue is with the creative editing.

Click to expand...

Surely you can find far more blatant examples of "creative editing" than this, on CNN and almost any other network. This isn't even a molehill; at best, it's a pimple.

caw

blacbird said:

Surely you can find far more blatant examples of "creative editing" than this, on CNN and almost any other network. This isn't even a molehill; at best, it's a pimple.

caw

Click to expand...

Didn't they edit a bit of a speech where Pelosi recently admits that she's ashamed at what little Congress has done to stop the occupation of Iraq? I'd say that's far more serious than pro-wrestling...

The OP has said - twice - that the issue is nothing to do with pro wrestling. The issue, she takes pains to point out, is the questionable editing technique.

Voyager said:

I don't give a shit how fake the sport is or what you think of anyone involved. Deliberately twisting people's words to get a sound bite is as shady as a "reputable" news agency can get.

Click to expand...

Voyager said:

There are a lot of bad things that can be said about pro rasslin'. My issue is with the creative editing.

Click to expand...

OTOH, blacbird and Gaffer maintain that the technique isn't that foul.

The issue is whether CNN misrepresented the facts. Voyager says yes; Gaffer says no - not really.

blacbird says "mwell, yeah, but it's not hard to find worse cases".

I'm working through the Dummies' Guide to Political Forums; how'm I doin'?

I agree with Gaffer. Yes, CNN dropped the "Absolutely not" but the rest was straight out of Cena's mouth, who basically contradicted his own stock answer. It's a bad editing but not quite "creative editing." It would have been honest if CNN had shown the whole thing (OK, cut the irrelevant rant since they don't have time for the whole 3 minutes.) But think about it, even if they had included "absolutely not," you'd still be thinking "huh, and?" when he said "I can't tell you that I haven't, but you'll never be able to prove that I have." Those are some damning words.

poetinahat said:

The OP has said - twice - that the issue is nothing to do with pro wrestling. The issue, she takes pains to point out, is the questionable editing technique.

Click to expand...

Of which I'm concurring. The Pelosi speech was another instance of that kind of "creative editing" was done. The last bit was cut out and was an important one too.

at least Fox is always balanced.

They always balance the President's point of view with the Vice President's.

it sounded to me like he was firm on the fact the he hadn't, and he was using himself (first person) as a hypothetical to illustrate the culture surrounding steroid use and the problems surrounding the investigation thereof. maybe i'm wrong about this inference, but if not then it surely represents unethical journalism practices. the "whole truth" would be to put his "i can't tell you that i haven't ..." in its hypothetical context, balanced by "absolutely not!" whether it be a pro wrestler, a little lady in a backwoods town organizing a cake walk, or the president of the us, the journalist has the responsibility to present the figure in the true light in which he/she interviewed them. if i gave an interview, even if it was to a local church newsletter, and they edited my comments to present a different, more "juicy" intent than what i had provided, i'd be pissed. and even though it's something as irrelevant as pro rasslin', it is still an interesting illustration to discuss the ethics of journalism.

But the ethics of journalism -- while at times journalism seeks to sensationalize, and that's a given -- is also to call people on their BS. So one unequivocal statement and one equivocal statement create doubt in someone's mind as it should, particularly a journalist, and that should be pointed out. The best course would probably been to run both statements, but regardless, his words aren't being 'twisted.'

TheGaffer said:

But the ethics of journalism -- while at times journalism seeks to sensationalize, and that's a given -- is also to call people on their BS. So one unequivocal statement and one equivocal statement create doubt in someone's mind as it should, particularly a journalist, and that should be pointed out. The best course would probably been to run both statements, but regardless, his words aren't being 'twisted.'

Click to expand...

Right -- the gist of his speech was that "you can't test us -- it doesn't really mean anything -- you can't really prove if we did or did not, and I'm not telling you if some of us do or do not, and why do you media make such a fuzz anyway?" To me, that's BS. So with or without the "absolutely not" he's still spewing BS.

Besides, it's not a real sport, so what if they do steroid? So I guess Cena does have a point...