It's 9:30 AM ...
... do you know where your favorite MSM news source is in covering the "Cheney +speech +CNN +glitch" story?
If yours is World Net Daily, Yahoo is your news search engine. That's source is the only result, with two coming up.
If yours is Drudge, Google is your news search engine. That is Google's only result, with two being found. At least hey found the originator of the story.
No "Times" in any of it's permutations, no "Posts", no "Tribunes", no Heralds, or Dispatches.
Now maybe the search criteria isn't wide or accurate enough, but whose fault is that? I thought the goal of the MSM is to get the news to their readers not the readers haing to play hide and seek with the MSM.
The blogosphere is going to play this every way that's possible, and maybe even drag the truth out of CNN, before most of the MSM even 'decides' it is news "worthy".
More: (Via Michelle Malkin's updates) The blogosphere is running down the story with lightning speed. Lots more technical analysis was done late last night by Intoxination and The Shape of Days that creates some questions about the The Political Teen's video. And the Political Teen promptly responds that he is following up on those.
But even so, according to Malkin, CNN is investigating further.
I still ask, as I did last night, what are the odds? I am sure you could convince me the odds of it just being a glitch is quite good if you could show that this type of thing happens once in a while, especially if it is a touch of the wrong button on the panel. If this 'gitch' rarely happens because the the use of the "X" feature does not occur at the time at which it did, then it could be described as accidental, but not a "gitch" as CNN stated. And if this morphs from glitch to accidental, that is when consideration, my consideration, of odds that it happened on the "Cheney watch" (my pun), pushes it's happening the indicator awfully far out towards the "intentional" end of the bar graph.
More: (First apologies for not editing the original for (sp) and (gr) errors; I hate having them but was in a hurry on account of a looming meeting time.) Now, here's the "more." Blogs for Bush reminds of another instance of CNN broadcasting editorial content over regular broadcast material. That one was a glaring "glitch" most certainly filed in the "personnel glitch" drawer.
I am still sticking with the odds. This sets an underlying tone to CNN's glitches. I am not a probability and statistics expert, so I don't know if tone can be quantified. I have wondered about the broad CNN story spectrum, lots and lots of it doing the same managing of video as with the Cheney speech broadcast. That would put lots of potential events in the "lotto drawing" of when this would happen. That it happened to a forceful and "divisive" Cheney speech, well, all I can say is "Hmmm!"
If yours is World Net Daily, Yahoo is your news search engine. That's source is the only result, with two coming up.
If yours is Drudge, Google is your news search engine. That is Google's only result, with two being found. At least hey found the originator of the story.
No "Times" in any of it's permutations, no "Posts", no "Tribunes", no Heralds, or Dispatches.
Now maybe the search criteria isn't wide or accurate enough, but whose fault is that? I thought the goal of the MSM is to get the news to their readers not the readers haing to play hide and seek with the MSM.
The blogosphere is going to play this every way that's possible, and maybe even drag the truth out of CNN, before most of the MSM even 'decides' it is news "worthy".
More: (Via Michelle Malkin's updates) The blogosphere is running down the story with lightning speed. Lots more technical analysis was done late last night by Intoxination and The Shape of Days that creates some questions about the The Political Teen's video. And the Political Teen promptly responds that he is following up on those.
But even so, according to Malkin, CNN is investigating further.
I still ask, as I did last night, what are the odds? I am sure you could convince me the odds of it just being a glitch is quite good if you could show that this type of thing happens once in a while, especially if it is a touch of the wrong button on the panel. If this 'gitch' rarely happens because the the use of the "X" feature does not occur at the time at which it did, then it could be described as accidental, but not a "gitch" as CNN stated. And if this morphs from glitch to accidental, that is when consideration, my consideration, of odds that it happened on the "Cheney watch" (my pun), pushes it's happening the indicator awfully far out towards the "intentional" end of the bar graph.
More: (First apologies for not editing the original for (sp) and (gr) errors; I hate having them but was in a hurry on account of a looming meeting time.) Now, here's the "more." Blogs for Bush reminds of another instance of CNN broadcasting editorial content over regular broadcast material. That one was a glaring "glitch" most certainly filed in the "personnel glitch" drawer.
I am still sticking with the odds. This sets an underlying tone to CNN's glitches. I am not a probability and statistics expert, so I don't know if tone can be quantified. I have wondered about the broad CNN story spectrum, lots and lots of it doing the same managing of video as with the Cheney speech broadcast. That would put lots of potential events in the "lotto drawing" of when this would happen. That it happened to a forceful and "divisive" Cheney speech, well, all I can say is "Hmmm!"
Posted by Dusty at 9:26 AM
0 Creaks:
Post a Comment