CNN President: We’re Not Going to Be Shamed Into Covering Benghazi Terror Attack

a reply to: buster2010

You keep mentioning these "13 Benghazi" under Bush.

Name the American diplomats killed on foreign soil under Bush, whose murder was blamed on a video rather than a terrorist attack.

I don't need all 13, half of the names will work fine.

originally posted by: buster2010
...13 Benghazis that happened on his watch.

Specifics, please.

Okay, that's rich. I just had to say, of all the people and all the organizations on Earth to talk about resisting being "shamed" into coverage, CNN makes this point?

I really burst out laughing to see this. Literally! That's a rare thing!

I mean...has he paid much attention to what people within his OWN industry came to think of his little news club during the 24/7 missing airplane into time warps and black holes coverage??

Won't be shamed... lol... GOOD.. Please don't cover it. I'd much prefer the distortions CNN would add to it just not exist to be part of the mix. All the better in that way.

a reply to: SloAnPainful
And here I had thought CNN was getting better and improving since the Clinton years. Color me wrong.

a reply to: SloAnPainful
A good accounting of the times, SaP, and thank you.F&S.

There's too much government influence-- covert and overt
in the cycle to the point we're watching political commentary
23/7 instead of journalism. The effects are numerous; but
the worst could be the American TV viewing public unwilling
to dig like we've had to for the truth.

Historically I've been a pain in the butt conservative, and
placed demands on my channel surfing. I used to watch everything
for short time spans up until about five years ago-- then the
pendulum swung the other way.

The example I'm getting at was Keith Olbermann and his nasty wit.
He bashed Bush without quarter when there was a screw-up in the
Rep administration, with rare instances allowing the benefit of the
doubt.

The pendulum swung away as I previously mentioned: with the Dem.
battle cry "Anything but Bush..." All right, true to his word Keith dug
the knife in with equal zeal and a fair twist, right before Jeff Immelt
gave him the axe.
That capped it for me, and a month later my TV was in the dumpster.

From the time Rachel M. became the standard bearer Moan of Arc
on MSNBC and the CNN content went rapidly and almost neo-fascist,
everything out there I get wind of makes me reach for the salt shaker...
tending to absorb the information where possible after the pittance
drips through the bottom of my BS filter. I may trust but verify, but
never since Walter Cronkite and Jon Rappaport split the small screen
will I believe at face value: too much spin cycle.

If I can honor the last two fellows--- with whatever their personal politics
were, it did not color the facts they were tasked as journalists to present.
For that reason and in this system of flavored news we are in need of
their kind again, or we are lost.

The whole problem with this is that it should NOT be a political issue. Just because Fox News reports biased news, shouldn't give another news network a pass to be unbalanced in the other direction, remember we already have MSNBC for that.

What we need in the U.S. is an entirely new standard in news reporting. Just report the facts while not being allowed to be manipulated by the government or big corporate special interests. It really wouldn't be that hard either if everyone just stood up and demanded it. Our current media is a circus and should be shut down. We might as well all be watching the "National Enquirer" via ALL the major networks these days. Seriously, if regulations need to be implemented on anything, it should be our news media outlets. Things like Benghazi are important and people need to know, regardless of their political opinions.

Opinion and propaganda pieces should have no place in news reporting. Remember back in the day when they reported what was going on without their stupid opinions and comments? (ESPECIALLY during elections) I remember watching the World News as a child, it was weird because they JUST reported news! This shouldn't be as difficult as it has become.

originally posted by: Wookiep
What we need in the U.S. is an entirely new standard in news reporting.

I agree with your post. But when I read this sentence, I replaced "new" with "old" because it used to be pretty good. Not political, like it is today. There is VERY little real news on today. Watching cable news is an exercise in stroking one's political parts.

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: buster2010

You keep mentioning these "13 Benghazi" under Bush.

Name the American diplomats killed on foreign soil under Bush, whose murder was blamed on a video rather than a terrorist attack.

I don't need all 13, half of the names will work fine.

So an ambassador's life is more important than anyone else? So it's ok for Americans to be killed just as long as it's not an ambassador. You may want to check your facts Obama did call it a terror attack.

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit

originally posted by: buster2010
...13 Benghazis that happened on his watch.

Specifics, please.

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

Why didn't people scream for Bush's head for doing nothing about these? Where was FOX with the constant news reports?

a reply to: buster2010

You said 13 Benghazi's under Bush.

Now it's everyone it equal when they are dead.

There is a world of difference between men and women (mostly foreign nationals) dying in "routine" attacks that are considered terrorist attacks when they occur, and an American Ambassador being killed and his murder being blamed on a video.

I know this, you know this, the world knows this.

a reply to: buster2010

Which of those were "stand down" orders given?

ETA: I should add: why are we discussing Bush, anyway? We can make another thread to go through his misdeeds (again) if anyone wishes. This thread is about Benghazi and Obama.

a reply to: SloAnPainful

While I think that it is ridiculous not to cover an issue as important as Benghazi, the events which took place, and how they came to be as they were, I also think that on one point the CNN president is absolutely right.

It is not breaking news. It is broken news, in all of the possible ways that the phrase could be used.

a reply to: SloAnPainful

This is indicative of the moral depravity of the GOP.

George Bush and the war in Iraq based on lies killed almost 1 million Iraqis and thousands of US troops and you heard not a peep out of these moral savages and hypocrites about an investigation on that issue.

a reply to: Willtell

Who said anything about the GOP?

Fact are facts, four dead Americans, one being a diplomat...

The thread isn't about the war in Iraq. Stick to the topic?

-SAP-

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: buster2010

You keep mentioning these "13 Benghazi" under Bush.

Name the American diplomats killed on foreign soil under Bush, whose murder was blamed on a video rather than a terrorist attack.

I don't need all 13, half of the names will work fine.

So an ambassador's life is more important than anyone else? So it's ok for Americans to be killed just as long as it's not an ambassador. You may want to check your facts Obama did call it a terror attack.

So because he called it a "terrorist attack" that justified it? No. I didn't think so. People don't get the fact FOUR PEOPLE DIED! Come on.

I get that American soldiers are dying everyday overseas, but this thread isn't about that.. It's about Benghazi.

-SAP-

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

Why anyone continues to waste their time on these channels just baffles me.

30 seconds and Google gets you more in depth coverage than a month of watching CNN.

Truer words could not have been spoken. They're so pathetic that I can't watch any of them anymore. They may as well be the Comedy Channel albeit without the comedy.

Yes, the death of Americans and conspiratorial coverup by the Government has no news value.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: 200Plus

a reply to: buster2010



You keep mentioning these "13 Benghazi" under Bush.



Name the American diplomats killed on foreign soil under Bush, whose murder was blamed on a video rather than a terrorist attack.



I don't need all 13, half of the names will work fine.

So an ambassador's life is more important than anyone else? So it's ok for Americans to be killed just as long as it's not an ambassador. You may want to check your facts Obama did call it a terror attack.

He did not, and it was proven he did not, and during the debate the moderator who defended Obama recanted and said she knew it was a lie and it was not called a terror attack but she could not help herself.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit

originally posted by: buster2010

...13 Benghazis that happened on his watch.

Specifics, please.

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.



June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.



October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.



February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.



May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.



July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.



December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.



March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)



September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.



January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.



March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.



July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.



September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.



Why didn't people scream for Bush's head for doing nothing about these? Where was FOX with the constant news reports?

None of those were covered up and lied about. The problem is not that an attack happened. The problem was the President INTENTIONALLY lied and misled people about the attacks blaming it on a spontaneous massing of regular citizens that were angry about a video. It was a 100% complete lie.

Now in which of these attacks were US forces ordered to stand down so that MORE Americans, including the ambassador, were killed? That's what Obama did.

a reply to: SloAnPainful

So,
that's what this dude is dictating to the FCC?

Regulatory powers and enforcement[edit]
The FCC regulates broadcast stations, amateur radio operators, and repeater stations as well as commercial broadcasting operators who operate and repair certain radiotelephone, television, radar, and Morse code radio stations. In recent years it has also licensed people who maintain or operate GMDSS stations. Broadcast licenses are to be renewed if the station meets the "public interest, convenience, or necessity".[citation needed]

The FCC's enforcement powers include fines and broadcast license revocation (see FCC MB Docket 04-232). Burden of proof would be on the complainant in a petition to deny. Fewer than 1% of station renewals are not immediately granted, and only a small fraction of those are ultimately denied.[citation needed]

While the FCC maintains control of the written and Morse testing standards, it no longer administers the exams, having delegated that function to private organizations.

Looks like dude has role reversal syndrome?
Violation of public interest clause; fcc should put dude in prison.