http://www.cnn.com/
they now have this little antenna thing that you have to pay to access. lame.
this will become free just like their videos in a year or so.

untill then I'm going to keep clicking on that stupid icon not thinking.

Where is that thing? I can' t find it.

sorry, I didn't let the animation load.
it's the "pipline" thing

Oh, I don't bother with that. Can't watch it at work anyways. Its never worked at home either.

you have to pay for it

They need to pay me!

I thought this would be about how their "reporters" on headline news act like high school cheerleaders. I feel like I'm watching MTV 10 years ago...

Then again, you don't like anything that doesn't shun the government or corperations. I'd say your opinion is a wee bit biast.

It has nothing to do with being 'biast' about coverage, the production values on that network SUCK. CNN Headline News was created to be a focused highlight reel of the day's most important events, so you think they would have their best foot forward; instead, it looks like a cross between local news and public access, and no marginally recognizable personality from the real CNN would be caught dead on it.

So to answer the original question of this thread, yes, they could get more annoying if they changed CNN to look like CNN Headline News. Then Ted Turner could run the whole news organization on five dollars a day.

I'm still trying to figure out how I'm biased for calling the "reporters" cheerleaders, they're just short of twirling their hail in their fingers and chewing bubblegum on the air. I donno whether to laugh or cry when they give american idol updates every week..this is a supposed NEWS network mind you... and they conveniently ignore real news stories daily.

Some people find American Idol news... I don't, but if you want people to watch, you give the people what they want to see. I had jury duty a week or two ago. The only thing on in the waiting room was CNN. I watched it for 5-6 hours straight. They only aired stories on the flodding in the mid-atlantic states, the suprime court ruling on war crime trials, Bush and the Jap PM, and the Gaza fighting. They never acted like cheerleaders, they were just as professonal as any other news anchor. They could have reported on other topics, but thats not up to them. Thats up to the writers behind the scenes.

That one line you just said... "they conveniently ignore real news stories daily. "... That proved my point right there.

Man_of_the_Century said:

We're talking about CNN Headline News, not CNN (two different channels).

Man_of_the_Century said:

How can you doubt that line on its own merits given how you justify those merits in your first sentence? Whatever the source, an editing standard that gives "people what they want to see" even if it's not real news would inevitably lead to "ignoring real news stories daily".

Also, "American Idol is not news" is not a liberal talking point.

Ah, my mistake. I never watched the stuff for more than a minute during my usual channel surfing. I'll take a look at the headline news tonight.

You'll enjoy the quality of the graphics and accompanying music, technology that rivals only the Turkish local news.

Production values analogy: If this were wrestling fifteen years ago and CNN was the WWF, CNN Headline News would be WCW.

ShadowSD said:

"Real News Stories" is an opinion. Anything that happens in the world, from a fire in Spain to the score of a Cricket match in London, to who dropped of a popular TV show is news. Its not like they only show what happened on "America's favorate soap", they do air other news. I don't even need to see the show to know they don't do that (although I am going to check it out). I guess my point is just because its not the news you want to see, doesn't mean its not news.

HailTheLeaf said:

The sledgehammer of irony here is that after a few years anchoring for MSNBC, (early 90's MTV News anchor) Alison Stewart now looks more credible and professional than anyone on Headline News.

Man_of_the_Century said:

Absolutely. However, it is an opinion based on certain criteria, not any moron's random opinion. Journalism is based on understanding that criteria and attempting to adhere to it as objectively as possible. If this were not the case, ratings would go from an important variable to the only variable, and every newscast would spend 100% of their time talking about American Idol and whatever other garbage gets the highest ratings on the airwaves.

ShadowSD said:

Thats what I've been saying (or attempting to). I still fail to see if you run a story on who won American Idol (which does appeal to some people) then you are ignoring the "real news" in the world. The whole brodcast is not dedicated to American Idol, is it?

It could be worse, yes. It could also be better.

The US news media always had the best reputation in the world when it came to reporting on the country's politics as well as having international bureaus. Nonetheless, it was never perfect, in particular insulating us from the rest of the world's sentiments (not withstanding the coverage of a few major foreign stories), and in recent years we have been going in the wrong direction. You can't really notice the insular nature of our news coverage until you travel abroad though.

These days, I try to watch Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria (PBS) every week to circumvent that effect. Even though it's a bit dry, there's always plenty of international coverage that you will never see anywhere else in the televised news media, so I find it quite informative.

What time is it on? I'll take a gander...

On WEDH, it usually airs every week at 11 am on Sundays. On the other two PBS stations I get (WGBH and WSBE) I haven't been able to find it. Unfortunately, out of those three I believe WEDH is the Connecticut station, and thus the least likely for you to get - but if that's that case, you probably get at least one PBS station that I don't, so look into that.

I do have WGBH, and one other but I don't know which exact one it is. If I ever get up that early, I'll see if I get it.