Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CNN Declares Hillary Clinton President  
User currently offlinePacNWJet From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 980 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1634 times:

I was watching The Situation Room on CNN today (Thursday, March 6). In one report a reporter referred to Bill Clinton as "the First Husband" while Wolf Blitzer called Bill Clinton "the first President Clinton" (in the same way journalists refer to George H.W. Bush as the first President Bush and George W. Bush as the second President Bush) as if a second President Clinton is a foregone conclusion. Slips of the tongue or subtle and perhaps unintended journalistic bias?

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1618 times:



Quoting PacNWJet (Thread starter):

A non-issue that's what . . .

Simple as that . . .


User currently offlinePacNWJet From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 980 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1599 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1):
A non-issue that's what . . .

Simple as that . . .

Of course it's a non-issue. But it still makes for interesting television watching. I'm certainly not saying that CNN reporters and anchors do this deliberately. But in this campaign season, which stretches on for months, and months, and months, for those of whose job it is to stay informed about politics, this kind of thing keeps things fresh and makes the process of following the news more entertaining. When two reporters on CNN withing minutes of each other use language that implies that Hillary Clinton's presidency is a foregone conclusion, it makes things interesting. Lord knows that if Dan Rather said this sort of thing or, god forbid, a reporter on Fox News referred to John McCain as "President McCain" with a slip of the tongue, the blogosphere would go ape.

Edited for spelling.

[Edited 2008-03-06 15:05:54]

User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1559 times:



Quoting PacNWJet (Thread starter):
In one report a reporter referred to Bill Clinton as "the First Husband" while Wolf Blitzer called Bill Clinton "the first President Clinton"

And what was the context of these reports? A "What If" discussion? Really, there was a lot of interesting news today, and this is the best you can do?


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21461 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1558 times:



Quoting PacNWJet (Reply 2):
When two reporters on CNN withing minutes of each other use language that implies that Hillary Clinton's presidency is a foregone conclusion, it makes things interesting.

Nonsense. If they didn't explicitly make the distinction when talking about Bill, you would probably cry foul about that as well.


User currently offlinePacNWJet From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 980 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1531 times:

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 3):
And what was the context of these reports? A "What If" discussion? Really, there was a lot of interesting news today, and this is the best you can do?



Quoting Klaus (Reply 4):
Nonsense. If they didn't explicitly make the distinction when talking about Bill, you would probably cry foul about that as well.

O.K. Uncle. I give up. Will a moderator please remove this thread. I'm sorry I posted it. I seem to have made people mad. What was my purpose in starting the thread? I thought it was funny that two CNN reporters made slips of the tongue that seemed to indicate that they are already getting ready to report on a Hillary Clinton presidency. Isn't that funny? I don't mean funny in the suspcious sense. I mean ha ha funny in the sense that it brings a smile to your face because it is humorous. However, apparently my post has been taken as some sort of rant against a great big conspiracy at CNN. My apologies. Perhaps I should have waited until the weekend when maybe people would have a better sense of humor. Sheesh. Lighten up

Oh, and by the way, the context of the story was not a "what if" Hillary Clinton is elected president. It was a story about how the Clinton campaign has shut down reporters' access to Bill Clinton whom, as mentioned previously, the CNN reporter referred to as "the First Husband" and Wolf Blizter referred to as "the first President Clinton."

[Edited 2008-03-06 15:36:50]

User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11650 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1517 times:

Didn't FOX news put a (D) behind Larry Craig's name once and people thought it was funny? "Oh, that was just a slip of the finger..." or some similar BS. This is a non-issue. Even *IF* she wins in any capacity in November, I am sure Republicans will come back to this and scream for a recount. It's sad politics has come to this. We don't discuss issues. We worry about boxers or briefs. We worry about a slip of the finger. Scores of Americans are starving, scores of Americans are dying because they can not afford to go to the doctor. Scores of Americans are freezing to death because they have to choose between shelter and heat, and the only things political we can talk about is a slip of the finger and how bad a former president was soley because of sex and keeping someone with an (R) behind his name so vote for the nasty horrible person with a (D) behind her name. Issues mean nothing, it seems like.

Disgusting.

I have an idea: let's vote for the person who has a plan to feed the hungry in America, care for the sick in America, give warmth to those in America. At this point, I don't give a damn if that person has an (R) or a (D) or whatever behind their name. Let's do for America instead of BS like this.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offline747srule From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1503 times:

CNN=Communist News Network, Chicken Noodle Network, Corrupt News Network!! That has got to be the MOST liberally biased news(?) anywhere.


Jesus is the way,the truth,and the life
User currently offlinePacNWJet From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 980 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1488 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 6):
It's sad politics has come to this. We don't discuss issues. We worry about boxers or briefs. We worry about a slip of the finger.

For crying out loud, aren't we allowed a little levity? Are frivolous discussions about gaffes, faux pas, and journalistic snafus forbidden in these serious times? Must every discussion of politics focus on life-or-death issues? Are we not allowed some silly conversations about the inanity of politics and the media's coverage thereof? After all, it is the journalists themselves that ask the ridiculous "boxer-or-brief" questions and make slips of the tongue that reveal, at the very least, a distracted mind when reporting on the news. Can we not take just a little time away from contemplating the fate of humanity to poke fun at the journalistic community? As I stated above, "sheesh"  sarcastic 


User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11650 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1476 times:



Quoting PacNWJet (Reply 8):
Can we not take just a little time away from contemplating the fate of humanity to poke fun at the journalistic community?

It would be nice if we could. But:

Quoting 747srule (Reply 7):
CNN=Communist News Network, Chicken Noodle Network, Corrupt News Network!! That has got to be the MOST liberally biased news(?) anywhere.

And this will continue from both sides: Democratic supporters bashing FOX and Republican supporters bashing CNN. I stated in another thread that I can not stomach listening to Rush, Hannity, and FOX but I do so I can compare that with Air America, the Nation, and liberal media outlets. I think that is more productive than scouting for things like this.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21461 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1468 times:



Quoting PacNWJet (Reply 5):
What was my purpose in starting the thread? I thought it was funny that two CNN reporters made slips of the tongue that seemed to indicate that they are already getting ready to report on a Hillary Clinton presidency. Isn't that funny?

A paranoid mind will certainly see conspiracies everywhere.

Realistically journalists are supposed to speak clearly and to make distinctions where necessary. Even while a second Clinton presidency is still just a possibility, it is already in the minds of people. Under the circumstances it is therefore simply correct to make the distinction when talking about the first Clinton presidency for clarity, especially when looking for some variation as halfway decent journalists will always try.


User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11650 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1454 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 10):
Realistically journalists are supposed to speak clearly and to make distinctions where necessary.

"Dewey defeats Truman!" comes to mind. Thank you, Klaus. I was not looking at it that way. Your post puts this thread in perspective for me.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1450 times:



Quoting PacNWJet (Reply 8):
For crying out loud, aren't we allowed a little levity?

 yes 

Quoting PacNWJet (Reply 8):
Are frivolous discussions about gaffes, faux pas, and journalistic snafus forbidden in these serious times?

 no 

Quoting PacNWJet (Reply 8):
Must every discussion of politics focus on life-or-death issues?

 no 

Quoting PacNWJet (Reply 8):
Are we not allowed some silly conversations about the inanity of politics and the media's coverage thereof?

 yes 

Quoting PacNWJet (Reply 5):
I mean ha ha funny in the sense that it brings a smile to your face because it is humorous.

No where in your thread starter did you mention "ha ha funny". Nowhere was levity mentioned. I didn't read anything but a rant in the thread starter . . . no smilie to indicate humor, no words to indicate humor, nothing . . . granted passing an emotion via the ether is difficult, but we have tools to assist you . . .  silly   laughing   rotfl   wink   biggrin  etc.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 10):
A paranoid mind will certainly see conspiracies everywhere.

Exactly . . .


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21461 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1421 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 11):
"Dewey defeats Truman!" comes to mind.

Maybe, but it's actually not the same thing at all - the distinction between the real first Clinton presidency and the possible second one is not a gaffe but simply correct and plausible. And it does not claim that Hillary would actually win but simply accounts for the possibility of that taking place and making the distinction for the sake of clarity (assuming that the context of the broadcast didn't make any false claims).


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4105 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1413 times:

I guess this makes up for all the Obama bias.  Smile

User currently offlinePacNWJet From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 980 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1413 times:



Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):
Maybe, but it's actually not the same thing at all - the distinction between the real first Clinton presidency and the possible second one is not a gaffe but simply correct and plausible. And it does not claim that Hillary would actually win but simply accounts for the possibility of that taking place and making the distinction for the sake of clarity (assuming that the context of the broadcast didn't make any false claims).

It would be interesting to go back to the 2000 presidential campaign and see if Wolf Blitzer referred to George H.W. Bush as "the first president Bush" or simply "President Bush" or "former President Bush." Before George W. Bush was elected president there would have been no need to refer to George H.W. Bush as the "first" president Bush since there wasn't a "second" president Bush and perhaps would never be one.

As I state previously, the context of the story was how the Clinton campaign has cut off media access to Bill Clinton. Without any reference to what would happen in the future, Wolf Blitzer referred to Bill Clinton as "the first President Clinton." Why "first"? With whom is he making a distinction? The "second" President Clinton? What if there isn't a second President Clinton? Why not just call Bill Clinton "President Clinton" and Hillary Clinton "Senator Clinton"? Doesn't that make things clear?

Again, I am not asserting a big bad bias at CNN. I just think it is funny  Smile  Cool  biggrin   bouncy   cheerful   goodvibes   rotfl   spin   veryhappy   yes  that Wolf Blitzer made this snafu.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21461 posts, RR: 53
Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1392 times:



Quoting PacNWJet (Reply 15):
With whom is he making a distinction? The "second" President Clinton? What if there isn't a second President Clinton?

Then Bill will lose the "first" designation again. Simple as that.

Quoting PacNWJet (Reply 15):
Why not just call Bill Clinton "President Clinton" and Hillary Clinton "Senator Clinton"? Doesn't that make things clear?

Not quite as clear for a listener who may not be concentrating very well. And from the way journalists normally work, that variant is most probably being used alternatingly as well. Journalists hate repeating the exact same wording over and over, so they're looking for variations to express the same facts in a slightly different way in order to avoid boring the listeners to the point where they might just zap to a different channel.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1355 times:



Quoting PacNWJet (Thread starter):
I was watching The Situation Room on CNN today (Thursday, March 6). In one report a reporter referred to Bill Clinton as "the First Husband" while Wolf Blitzer called Bill Clinton "the first President Clinton" (in the same way journalists refer to George H.W. Bush as the first President Bush and George W. Bush as the second President Bush) as if a second President Clinton is a foregone conclusion.

Well, they don't call it the Clinton News Network for nothing, do they?  duck 

Quoting Klaus (Reply 16):
Quoting PacNWJet (Reply 15):
Why not just call Bill Clinton "President Clinton" and Hillary Clinton "Senator Clinton"? Doesn't that make things clear?

Not quite as clear for a listener who may not be concentrating very well. And from the way journalists normally work, that variant is most probably being used alternatingly as well. Journalists hate repeating the exact same wording over and over, so they're looking for variations to express the same facts in a slightly different way in order to avoid boring the listeners to the point where they might just zap to a different channel.

Well, if Sen. Clinton is elected, they are going to have to concentrate a little bit better.

My guess is Bill will become "former President Bill Clinton" in the media.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Hillary Clinton/Ted Kennedy Joke posted Wed Oct 17 2007 17:36:11 by Mbj-11
Hillary Clinton "Sopranos" Spoof posted Thu Jun 28 2007 19:32:49 by EA CO AS
Hillary Clinton: I'm In posted Sat Jan 20 2007 16:00:59 by NoUFO
Soldier Coerced Into Photo-Op With Hillary Clinton posted Mon Nov 13 2006 10:27:19 by IAH777
Hillary For President - She Has My Support! posted Thu Jun 8 2006 23:37:02 by Dsa
Catfight -- Hillary Clinton Bashes Ann Coulter posted Thu Jun 8 2006 00:05:26 by AerospaceFan
Al Gore May Challenge Hillary Clinton In '08 posted Fri Sep 23 2005 02:08:22 by MidnightMike
Hillary Clinton- Votes Whats Popular Today. posted Thu Sep 8 2005 05:33:12 by GuitrThree
Sen. Hillary Clinton Collapses During Appearance posted Mon Jan 31 2005 19:26:07 by TWFirst
Why Do Conservatives Hate Hillary Clinton So Much? posted Wed Oct 6 2004 02:17:10 by Superfly