‘A New Low for CNN’ (2017)

40 Newspaper Headlines That Push The Limits Of Human Stupidity | DeMilked

Why do so many of us detest “journalists”? Maybe it’s because they despise us and take it for granted that we’re way, way, way too stupid ever to see through any of their ham-fisted sophomoric tricks.

Like this one:

A New Low for CNN

Yeah, ain’t that just too cute for words? “Sarah, does this administration [Donald Trump’s] believe slavery is wrong?” Oooh, I’ve got her, she’s toast! 

God help me, I used to be a reporter! And an editor. But I think I can honestly say that what passes for everyday journalistic practice these days would have been laughed out of the room as comically unprofessional, back in the 1970s.

At least the local journalists were honest.

8 comments on “‘A New Low for CNN’ (2017)

  1. I haven’t watch network news in decades, because of this inane behavior. Even Fox, which claims to be conservative has journalistic standards I find unprofessional.

    There was recent coverage of a train derailment in Texas, and some junior wannabe on screen personality on Fox was “explaining” some technical details of a story to the viewers, and only proving that his understanding was juvenile, if not infantile. He kept circling back to the diesel fuel that was burning and how dangerous and explosive it is. No kidding?! Fuel that injected into a diesel engine burns and can explode? Wow!!! Who would have imagined such a thing. Better switch to distilled water. 🙂

    This junior wannabe knew less about his subject matter than the average grade school kid should know. Yes, the train derailed and the fuel tank was damaged. They were pouring water on the fire, and it wasn’t doing much good, because water mostly serves to cool the fire and flammable liquids burn very hot and water can only do so much.

    Foam serves to deprive a fire of its oxygen source, and can be very effective in fighting liquid fueled fires. The problem is, foam has to be present, before you can use it. A later picture of the accident scene shows that foam was used, and the fire was put out. The events of this relatively minor story were obviously beyond the comprehension of this “reporter”, whose only apparent skills involve reading a teleprompter, keeping his hair quaffed and possibly tying a Windsor knot in his tie (assuming that someone doesn’t do it for him). It was embarrassing.

    A train derailment can be a serious accident, and requires a competent response, from the firefighters, etc. Most derailments are local events, and while a fuel fire from a damaged locomotive makes for impressive visuals, it’s hardly national news, unless there is a secondary problem, such as hazardous cargo. The “reporting” for this story was obviously just an excuse to air video footage of a fire, which always plays well to viewers. Instead of droning on about how dangerous diesel fuel is, perhaps this little punk should have stuck to reporting facts.

    1. Quite true.

      What gets me is how news reporting has died. Let me explain …

      These days, news stories, and especially headlines, tend to play on the emotional aspects of the event, instead of the facts. I feel compassion for people who are affected by an event, such as a train derailment, but their feelings are not news. News should be facts. I wish everyone the best, but if some disaster looms, that is the time for facts, not some overgrown child blathering on about subjects he obviously was I’ll informed to report upon.

    2. Another thing I’ve noticed in the nooze: sometimes, one might even say often, the headline has very little to do with the story. What kind of drivel do they learn in J-school, these days?

    3. I’ve noticed the unrelated headline thing, myself. I see that a lot on YouTube, with videos about news events, where the headline never seems to surface within the video.

Leave a Reply