CNN and the limits of presidential power

When I worked in newspapers, we had a saying: Just report what’s happening; the newspaper should not become part of the story. In filing periodic open records requests, we would sometimes have to mention the name of the newspaper in stories or editorials in order to let readers know how challenging it was, in certain cases, to get information that should have been made readily available to anyone off the street. If it is difficult for a newspaper to obtain information, how much more challenging is it for members of the public? Elected officials often take the position that information is somehow privileged or protected and needlessly require the media and residents to navigate a labyrinthine process before handing over public documents. Information that is not sensitive or part of a criminal investigation is and should always be freely available to anyone for any reason. When it is not and when public officials redact information that doesn’t need to be redacted or causes egregious delays in handing over information, the public has a right to know. It is in these rare times that newspaper editors and publishers are justified in mentioning the newspaper as part of the story, but even then, articles should remain focused on what information was uncovered and not get bogged down in the plight of the newspaper or reporter. While it may make for some interesting reading, how media outlets struggle to get information is, perhaps, worth mentioning, but shouldn’t be the main focus of a story. The point is to reveal how elected officials are managing or mismanaging public resources.

During most typical presidencies — the current one is far from typical — members of the press get to ask the president or the press secretary questions about how the administration is managing taxpayer resources. While no one is deluded enough to think that every word uttered at a press conference is true or that the administration is going to freely offer information that runs counter to whatever narrative it wants to put forward, press conferences are important in holding presidents accountable for how they handle those resources. As we have now seen, Trump, during rare times when he actually holds a press conference — once going for more than a year without one — often has a caustic relationship with journalists who make him angry or do not toe the line. CNN and The New York Times have been two of Trump’s main targets, going back to before Trump took office.

The stage was set, then, for CNN and Trump’s most recent spat when, clearly frustrated about how GOP losses during the midterms potentially served as an indictment on his presidency, Trump attempted to shut down questions from CNN’s Jim Acosta, and when Acosta refused to give up his microphone to an aide, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders erroneously claimed, using doctored video footage to “prove” her case, that Acosta inappropriately put his hands on the intern. The administration then revoked Acosta’s press pass, and CNN proceeded to file a lawsuit, seeking “emergency relief” to restore the reporter’s access to the White House and claiming Trump violated the First and Fifth amendments. Federal judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee no less, ordered the administration to temporarily restore Acosta’s press pass on Friday, but did not rule on the main part of the case. A final decision is apparently coming at a later time. Commentators on CNN have called the ruling a “win for CNN” and for the First Amendment.

All of this is unprecedented, of course, and certainly warranted news coverage, but I am uncomfortable with how CNN has blanketed this story, its own story, on their network and all over its website. I don’t know how a more traditional news outlet like The New York Times would have handled a similar situation, but my hunch is that the newspaper would simply have had one story and updated it accordingly as new information came in. In other words, a media outlet can’t exactly ignore the fact that a sitting president of the United States took away a reporter’s press pass, but to feature at least seven articles on its website related to various angles of the lawsuit, as CNN did earlier this week, and to give the story prominent air time is a bit overboard, especially given that supposedly objective anchors like Brooke Baldwin, among others, could be seen on the air nodding in agreement as CNN lawyer Ted Olson talked about Trump’s overreach in the case.

In a joint statement, USA Today, Fox News and other media outlets have voiced their support for CNN and the First Amendment in the case. It will be interesting to see how Brian Stelter, CNN chief media correspondent, covers the case on his show, “Reliable Sources,” which investigates how the media covers the news. Is Stelter going to analyze how CNN covered its own story or focus on other matters? CNN will probably not be able to help itself and once again mention the case, along with its much-heralded win, on Stelter’s show.

Make no mistake. This was, indeed, an important case for the preservation of the First Amendment against the misuse of presidential power, but that CNN and Acosta were the alleged “victims” is of little consequence. Any other reporter in the room could have just as well taken the brunt of Trump’s ire, so CNN’s specific role in this is unimportant and irrelevant. The important point is the First Amendment must be upheld and that the president can’t capriciously and without cause take away a reporter’s press pass. The media, and by extension, the public, needs to have access to the White House.

I would hope that from here on out CNN treads lightly on trumpeting its own cause and focus, instead, on exposing the administration’s hypocrisies, lies and half-truths. God knows there’s plenty to talk about.

When journalism fails

“‘Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.” – George Orwell, “1984”

***

One of the most troubling developments in journalism, probably in my lifetime, with the exception of the overtly polarized media — Fox News, MSNBC and many others on television and online that don’t even pretend to hide their biases anymore — happened last month when Sinclair Broadcast Group, the conservative conglomerate that owns 173 local stations nationwide, forced its anchors to read a canned statement about the company’s supposed integrity in news reporting (including WPGH in Pittsburgh where I live). The company told the public to hold stations accountable for honest news gathering without the slant and invited viewers to contact them if they saw a problem.

On the surface, this sounds like an admirable thing to do. Any news source should be open to critiques and willing to air or publish corrections when they get details wrong. But these weren’t statements from local producers tailored to the communities in which they serve. These were identical talking points handed down from the corporate office, and taken together, are chilling reminders that without free speech and a free press, democracy cannot flourish. In fact, it withers.

[pullquote]
Yeah, nothing says we value independent media like dozens of reporters forced to repeat the same message over and over again like members of a brainwashed cult. — John Oliver, “Last Week Tonight”[/pullquote]

CNN’s Brian Stelter broke the story, but Deadspin spliced together a video of dozens of anchors all saying the same things in lockstep. The full transcript is here.

Glossing over the fact that these statements were delivered with no lead-ins or context whatsoever, which is bizarre by itself, the content sounded like fodder from Fox News and almost precisely echoes President Donald Trump’s breathless cries about supposed “fake news” coming out of The New York Times, CNN, NBC or any other outlets publishing information that doesn’t paint him or his administration in a positive light.

Here is an excerpt:

… We’re concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media.

More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories … stories that just aren’t true, without checking facts first.

Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control ‘exactly what people think’…This is extremely dangerous to (our) democracy.

The first point should be obvious, but it has to be made: the lion’s share of reporting done at the local level, and especially the halfhearted, show-up-and-leave-in-a-trail-of-dust variety at local TV stations across the country, has little if anything to do with left- or right-wing dynamics. Some local stations add national news to their coverage just to have something to talk about for the full hour, but it’s not their coverage. They are just piggybacking off some other affiliate. And many local elections, like seats on the school board or city council, aren’t partisan in the first place.

This statement was projected onto a building recently in Alameda, Calif.

This statement was projected onto a building recently in Alameda, Calif.

Even for those local elections that are partisan, national Democratic and Republican platforms have little to do with funding school programs, fixing roads or maintenance of community facilities. The demarcation line usually revolves around whether to raise enough tax revenues to pay for continued county or city services or to just let things fall to shit, but aside from that, political affiliation isn’t as much of a variable on the local level as people may think.

The second thing to say is that the script just presents a paper thin, blanket argument, again parroted from Trump’s own mouth, about “fake news” without any corroborating information or specifics, taking great liberties with the word “some” to say the zero-sum of nothing:

Some members of the media [like who?] use their platforms to push their own personal bias [like what?] and agenda [like what?] to control ‘exactly what people think’ … This is extremely dangerous to a democracy.

The irony is that Sinclair is doing exactly the same thing, and it is reminiscent of state-run media in places like Russia and North Korea. As CNN reports, journalists like myself and many others across the nation are “chafing” at this encroachment on the free press. Some of Sinclair’s own employees, of course, are afraid to speak on the record about it for fear of losing their jobs. But many others who aren’t associated with the company have spoken out.

Erik Wemple with The Washington Post provided perhaps the most pointed assessment of the statement:

So: An editorial with no supporting evidence, no data, no argumentative beef. One hundred percent innuendo. No wonder Sinclair employees are freaking out about the thing.

I watched a little CNN yesterday, and commentators were talking about the plight of the individual anchors at these TV stations, who were made to read the statement and would likely face termination if they didn’t, noting that in more cases than not, they couldn’t just walk out of their jobs because they have families to support and mortgages to pay, etc. But journalism is a principled profession. Maybe the anchors can’t afford to walk out immediately, but if they sense that what they were forced to do was wrong, they can, and should, look for work at a more respectable company that actually values journalistic integrity. Consequently, I once worked for a paper owned by a family with friends on the local county council, and every so often, the managing editor and I would receive talking points via email and be expected to compose an editorial based on whatever opinion the owners felt the need to peddle, which was a severe conflict of interest. In addition to the tedious nature of the job itself — I spent most of my time copy editing and laying out pages — I couldn’t in good conscience work in an environment like that, so when the opportunity arose, I got out.

The larger issue is the continued damage Sinclair’s approach does to journalism and the principles of a free society. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are two of the highest ideals on which our nation was founded, and editors and producers must be allowed to make news decisions independently of government or corporate interests. Outlets like Fox News, MSNBC and others have already embraced a kind of partisan news vacuum that recalls the 19th century era of journalism in which most papers were either pro-slavery or staunchly against the “peculiar institution.” Supporting that kind of divide in the year 2018 not only represents an embarrassing disregard for journalistic integrity on the part of Sinclair, but, to borrow the company’s own phrase, it is an extremely dangerous threat to our democracy.

Sources:

[Cover image credit: “Orwell” by DeviantArt user TavenerScholar.

Cheerleading News Network

cnn

Source: http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/904724-2015-us-northeastern-blizzard

One of the unwritten rules of journalism is that unless there are unusual circumstances that call for it — say, in running a story about an unfulfilled open records request and a media outlet’s attempts to obtain public information — competent reporters, editors and television producers who actually care about producing quality journalism, don’t insert themselves or their organizations into news stories.

Journalists should simply report the news; not be the news.

But this central tenet of the news business seems to carry little weight over at CNN, which has a long history of inserting itself into the news stories it was supposed to be covering, perhaps most conspicuously in its breathless reports on Hurricane Katrina, in which correspondents and anchors and their crews, we were told, went to great lengths to get to such-and-such god-forsaken region of New Orleans, all in the interest of delivering real stories of courage in the face of immense trials. Because you see dear viewer, CNN’s is all about telling stories, namely its own. That is why tonight at 9 p.m. on CNN you will be able to relive it all, how CNN traversed land and sea and combed the globe to offer up breaking news, endless footage of Anderson Cooper and other reporters pointing to things and panoramic shots of empty courthouses, abandoned buildings, windswept Middle Eastern war zones, Anthony Bourdain eating weird shit and still more footage of Cooper pointing at things.

So, let’s all gather around the boob tube for some shameless self-aggrandizement, give three cheers for CNN and weep as national journalism continues the death march closer and closer to its own heat death.

SeaWorld of exploitation and desperation

SeaWorld-separates-moms-and-calves

After the release of CNN’s “Blackfish,” SeaWorld has continued its ad campaign to try to improve an image that has been thoroughly tarred and feathered as of late. I will be the first to admit that, after watching “Blackfish,” I wish that CNN had made more of an attempt to offer SeaWorld’s point of view, even if the theme park declined to participate in the documentary. Former SeaWorld trainer Mark Simmons, for instance, seems to have more of an objective point of view, yet he claims to have been interviewed by CNN for the better part of three hours for the film, only to have just a snippet of it to appear in the final cut.

Here is Simmons, who worked at the park from 1987-96, in an interview with the San Antonio Express-News:

I was physically present during many of the events that (the trainers) talked about in the movie, and I can tell you firsthand they completely misrepresented, provided disinformation and in many cases blatantly lied about those events.

I think CNN did have a clear agenda, and as a bit of failed journalism, did not put forth enough effort to portray multiple sides of the story as it relates to the treatment of orcas at SeaWorld.

That being said, SeaWorld has not done itself any favors in public relations in first, declining any and all interviews with CNN in responding to criticism. I suspect that SeaWorld has done this with the mindset that if officials respond, that would automatically give legitimacy to its critics, but I think it conveys the opposite message. By refusing to tell its side of the story to the media and the public and just releasing its own barrage of ads in an attempt to passively save face, it is operating as if it’s in its own insular cocoon, ever evasive and skirting transparency, not unlike Scientology or other subversive outfits coming under public scrutiny.

In any case, SeaWorld, cultish as it is at this point, has chosen it’s path, so let’s take a look at one of its ads currently making the rounds on TV:

First off, let me say that I went to SeaWorld in San Antonio once as a child, and excited as I remember being about seeing the whale show — Shamu, now deceased, was all the rave at the time — I always thought it was a little bizarre that having the whales simply do tricks in the water was not enough. SeaWorld had the whales get up out of the water and onto this platform at the front of the pool, do more tricks, splash the crowd, etcetera, like some clown of the deep.

Memory fails me on whether the particular whale I saw that day in the late 1980s or early 1990s had a bent dorsal fin, but watching the videos as an adult and seeing this deformed physiology seems now like a perverse show of exploitation, and however safe and humane SeaWorld may be in its treatment of orcas, the setup is certainly far from natural, as anyone can see. As this paper from Dr. Ingid Visser suggests, the prevalence of bent dorsal fins in wild male orcas is very low in most locations, at less than 5 percent in British Columbia and less than 1 percent off the coast of Norway. In captivity, however, this phenomenon is common.

According to a paper from the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

The collapsed dorsal fins commonly seen in captive killer whales (Hoyt 1992) do not result from a pathogenic condition, but are instead thought to most likely originate from an irreversible
structural change in the fin’s collagen over time (B. Hanson, pers. comm.). Possible
explanations for this include (1) alterations in water balance caused by the stresses of captivity or
dietary changes, (2) lowered blood pressure due to reduced activity patterns, or (3) overheating
of the collagen brought on by greater exposure of the fin to the ambient air. Collapsed or
collapsing dorsal fins are rare in most wild populations (Hoyt 1992, Ford et al. 1994, Visser
1998, Ford and Ellis 1999) and usually result from a serious injury to the fin, such as from being
shot or colliding with a vessel.

In any case, in one of its latest ads, two doughy-eyed SeaWorld workers outline some “facts” SeaWorld would like to clear up about its handling and care of orcas.

The ad really only presented two actual “facts,” so I’ll take a look at these here:

  • “We don’t collect killer whales from the wild and haven’t for 35 years” — While it is nearly impossible to substantiate this claim, SeaWorld is, as we speak, profiting from a number of orcas that were indeed captured in the wild, whether directly or from third-parties. Corky II, 47, currently living in SeaWorld San Diego, was captured off the coast of British Columbia in 1969 and is the longest surviving captive killer whale in the world. Although she does not have the bent dorsal fin like a lot of her fellow captives, this characteristic is mainly seen in males of the species. Katina, who lives in SeaWorld Orlando, was captured in Iceland in the late 1970s. Tilikum, of course, is currently living in Orlando and was caught off Vancouver Island in Canada. The whale first lived at Sealand of the Pacific. Ulises, captured in 1980 in Iceland, currently resides in Seaworld San Diego. So, while it may be true that SeaWorld has not and does not currently engage in catching orcas in the wild, the company has by this time bred enough of the animals that were previously captured, either directly or indirectly, to continue profiting off these animals for years to come. Yet, its current attempt to now wash its hands of the practice is disingenuous at best. Imagine a plantation worker in the antebellum South who once bought and profited off the back of slaves. Although most of them were no longer engaged in human trafficking by the mid-18th century, they were still benefiting from the practice and were very much a part of the legacy of that noxious system. By the same right, merely putting up a barrier of years between the present and the shameful years in which hunters were engaged in a veritable free-for-all of animal poaching does not allow SeaWorld to escape complicity.
  • “Our whales are healthy” and “thriving” and “they live just as long in the wild.” — PolitiFact rated this claim as half true and partially misleading. First, of course, whales have the potential to live longer in a facility because they don’t have to worry about predators and other environmental factors, so while the lifespans may be comparable, this claim doesn’t offer a full picture. Second, the argument that the whales are “thriving” is nothing more than pure conjecture and wishful thinking. They may look happy enough performing tricks on the pool platform, but the evidential record that captive whales can become understandably aggressive because of their cramped confines, develop bent dorsal fins, sustain injuries and undergo other mental and physical issues is so substantially documented that to suggest orcas thrive more so in captivity than they would in their own free-ranging environment is laughable.

    Here is PolitiFact’s conclusion on this claim:

    At its core, this claim is an oversimplification of a much more complex issue. Recent independent data suggests that survival rates for captive and wild orcas are about equal, but that by itself isn’t all that significant, experts told us. The data is limited and comparisons between orcas in captivity and in the wild are tenuous. Experts also noted that logic suggests captive whales should live longer because they don’t face predators and receive medical care, which makes SeaWorld’s claim further misleading.

While the public may be led to believe that the ads are purely the result of SeaWorld trainers wanting to clear up misrepresentations and assert how much they care for the whales, significant losses in attendance and revenue are really what’s behind this PR campaign that smacks of corporate desperation.

I have no doubt that most or all of the trainers currently working at SeaWorld facilities “love” the animals and may want to see them thrive, the common sense stands on its own: Killer whales, nor any other species of wild animal, can’t possibly be happier living in a cage or pool than they would be in an open world environment, of which, so long as the operation of their theme parks are profitable, suits at the corporate offices at SeaWorld presumably don’t care two wits.

So long as the largely ignorant and uninformed public continues supporting places like SeaWorld and helping the company churn out hundreds of millions in profits, the exploitation will continue. For, if SeaWorld really “loved” these animals from the board room right down to the training staff, they would simply find another, less injurious business model and cease profiting off the exploitation of the natural world.

Review of CNN’s ‘Atheists: Inside the World of Non-Believers’

After watching the rest of CNN’s special, “Atheists: Inside the World of Non-Believers” (video here), I will say that other than my initial concern, the show did a decent job of representing the very human struggle that many atheists face when they come to the conclusion that they no longer believe and the consequences that often follow when former believers abandon the faith of their family and friends.

Atheists: Inside the World of Non-Believers

The story of David Gormley, a former Christian with an evangelical family living in Georgia, was particularly heartbreaking. Gormley seems like a thoughtful guy who just wants to live an honest life free of hypocrisy. Like so many in similar situations, he genuinely couldn’t believe now even if he wanted to, yet he gets branded as a “dead person” by his father for simply wanting to seek the truth and drawing a conclusion on how to live his own life. And then there was the anonymous pastor, who is still leading a congregation despite not believing in the words he preaches from scripture. Offering one of the most salient points of the show, which taps into one reason why religion is a bane on society, he said if churches would devote the millions of dollars they spend on ornate windows and buildings and use the money to feed the hungry, communities around the nation would be transformed.

The special also did a good job of highlighting the fact that although nonbelievers share a common philosophy, they all can’t be lumped into one monolithic unit. Some nonbelievers, like former pastor Jerry DeWitt, who reminds me of a kind of atheist version of Rick Warren, adopt the mission of making the world a better place and loving everyone, regardless of whether someone’s religious or not. They don’t ridicule religion. They adopt a live and let live approach. On the other side of the spectrum, however, is someone like David Silverman, with American Atheists, who takes a more hard-lined, combative approach. I hope viewers of the show understood the implication: Atheism doesn’t have a spokesman or spokeswoman. One person, neither Silverman, DeWitt or Richard Dawkins, can or should represent millions of nonbelievers. Silverman, in particular, doesn’t speak for a lot of nonbelievers (and he had a couple inaccuracies in his interview), and I, for one, was alarmed when he said:

People don’t realize how downtrodden atheists are. The fact is we’re the most hated group in the country.

It may be true that atheists are not liked in some sectors of the nation, but “most hated?” I don’t think so. That lovely tag could be applied to the God Hates Fags folks or some other actual hate group. And what about downtrodden? That’s news to me too. Even the suggestion that atheists are downtrodden or somehow subjugated in America in the 21st century goes against everything freethinkers like Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and damn sure Christopher Hitchens — along with their fans — have stood for. Silverman is hardly a “legend in the atheist world,” as CNN contends. And I think that is largely the point. From the atheist viewpoint, there are no legends; only people, striving “in our ordinariness,” as Dawkins said.

I did have a few points of contention with the special. First, the title would have been better if it was simply: “Inside Atheism” or “Atheism: The Real Lives of Nonbelievers.” “Inside the World of Non-Believers” seems to suggest that atheism is like Scientology or some other cult into which a daring reporter must become embedded to understand its true nature when, in fact, all a journalist has to do is walk down the street, and chances are they will run into someone who does not believe in God. Just like there is no spokesperson, there is no insular atheistic “world” to find except Planet Earth. In fact, one could argue that nonbelievers are more comfortable with this world and more attuned to this world than believers who constantly pine for some better reality than our own.

Second, as Hemant Mehta pointed out, the show largely consisted of nonbelievers who were white males, and as far as I can tell, Vanessa Zoltan, with the Humanist Hub, was the only female atheist. What was missing was someone from the African-American community. The Black Atheists group on Facebook has more than 12,000 members. Surely, CNN could have reached out to one of them. What about Morgan Freeman? Whoopi Goldberg? Lauren Anderson Youngblood? Mandisa L. Thomas, president of Black Nonbelievers, Inc.?

Finally, the special didn’t include a whole lot of insight, which would seemingly be critical to a special on atheism, into why former believers turned away from their faith in the first place. I would have liked to see a little more commentary on what compels people like David Gormley and the anonymous pastor to reject religion. Perhaps in the full interviews that we didn’t see, the interviewees did address that question more fully, but it was largely left off the show. In almost every case from which I have heard, former believers become atheists or agnostics only after a monumental philosophical struggle and lots of studying and contemplation; they don’t just wake up one day and decide to disavow the god of their family and friends out of the blue or because they want to be contrarians or hurt anyone. They come to their conclusions because of a genuine desire to know or get as close to the truth as possible and to know what really happened, or what didn’t happen, 2,000 years ago in ancient Palestine, for if Christianity or Islam or Judaism were really worth their weight in salt, they should be able to stand up to scrutiny. Millions have thus concluded that they can’t.

All that said, what the show did particularly well, I thought, was presenting Dawkins, DeWitt and others as approachable, pleasant and happy people to contrast with common misperceptions and stereotypes about nonbelievers. What it seemed to lack, as expected given the source and the audience, was depth.

[rating: 2.5/5]

Those ‘devil worshiping’ nonbelievers must be up to no good

I’ve only gotten through five minutes of CNN’s special tonight on atheism, and already the tone has taken a negative turn. Here is an exchange between Richard Dawkins and a journalist:

Interviewer: What is it about atheism that rocks so many people to the core?

Dawkins: It’s a very odd thing that the very word “atheism” has a sort terrible resonance to people.

Then seemingly answering her own question:

Interviewer: ‘Cause people (much like yourself, perhaps?) think devil worshiping, morally bankrupt.

Dawkins: I know. It’s possible that that word has become so deeply ingrained in sort of a horror reaction that we do need to find a better word.

Interviewer: And there are other words. “None.” “Humanist.” “Skeptic.” “Freethinker.” “Agnostic.” Millions of Americans.

I’m sure Dawkins gave a fuller reply that doesn’t make him sound like he’s tacitly agreeing with her suggestion, but the video cuts away to another segment at that point. What struck me, other than the paradox of a “devil worshiping” nonbeliever, was that the narrator lowered her voice on those last three words, turned to a gloomy inflection, and said “millions of Americans,” as if she was describing cancer patients or convicts on death row.

Hear for yourself:

I thought my DVR was recording the whole special, but there was apparently an error, so I didn’t get the chance to see the whole show, but I will provide my thoughts on the rest of it shortly.

In any case, CNN was set to air the first national TV ad from American Atheists before and after the show, according to Hemant Mehta, but even that was softened to try to prevent offending believers. In the original spot, the video was edited to remove a nun that could be seen singing with some nonbelievers, you know, in a show of harmony and human solidarity.

According to Mehta:

CNN said they couldn’t air the costumed nun because it mocked religion. I don’t really see how a still image like that constitutes mockery … but the final version had the nun cropped out.

Here are the two ads.

Original:

Edited:

Another plane tragedy, rest assured CNN’s on the case

Airbus A320 plane crash

Part of me can’t help but wonder if CNN’s producers are secretly rubbing their hands in some kind of sadistic satisfaction that they can now justify spending weeks and weeks in obsessed speculation about what happened in this most recent event involving Airbus A320.

Finding Seth Rollins

Is it just me, or does the man in the artwork for CNN’s upcoming series “Finding Jesus” cut a striking resemblance to WWE’s Seth Rollins? Just an observation.

jesus christ seth rollins

In any case, the Shroud of Turin, which is the subject of the first episode, supposedly depicts the image of a crucified man that some claim might have been used in the burial of Jesus. Despite the fact that we have no idea what Jesus of Nazareth looked like — if he existed in the first place — and despite the fact that untold numbers of men, probably many of them bearing beards, long hair and pre-crucifixion wounds were crucified in 1st century Palestine, some apparently seem to think that the shroud still has some modicum of legitimacy, thus giving rise to what will no doubt be another sham show and rating grab perpetrating the myth that Jesus must have left some ancient clues to his true nature and existence if we are only willing to dig hard enough to find them.

CNN-bola

Anderson Cooper had the gall today to say CNN isn’t trying to stir up fear with its almost continuous coverage of this Ebola stupidity, but instead, the station is “spreading information.”

Thousands dead in West Africa. Meh. Who cares? A handful of Americans threatened: Time to put the entire CNN machine on the case!

Bullshit.

Sterling takes delusion to a whole new level

Although Donald Sterling actually said the words that he was “so sorry” and “so apologetic” for offending millions of black people, including those on his own team, the rest of Anderson Cooper’s interview with the former Clippers owner sounded as bad or worse than the initial tape. Notice that he said he was “sorry that so many people are hurt,” not that he was sorry for making the remarks. He continued to slam Magic Johnson’s character, wrongly saying that he’s got AIDS, and adding that the former basketball star is not a good role model, although the Magic Johnson Foundation reaches thousands of people in the inner cities each year. He also called Anderson Cooper a racist and blamed the media for blowing the tapes out of proportion. Perhaps even most egregious was his apparent comparison to how Jewish communities help people in need versus black communities. Just stunning.