"Bitch On The Run"

[NinetySix]

Did anyone else see this headline on Anderson Cooper?!? I flipped to CNN for a minute after the first segment of The Daily Show, only to see a story about a prize-winning show dog worth $100,000 which was supposed to be loaded onto a commercial flight in the cargo section, but instead got out of its cage and ran away.

Remember during the Spring of 1989, when the Iron Curtain began to show cracks, and it was apparent that something historic was getting ready to unfold right before our eyes? What network did you turn to in order to watch each day's events as they happened? And now, 17 years later, it's come to "Bitch On The Run"? What kind of editorial decision is that, to run a fluff piece under a hyperbolically sensational headline like that?

CNN, how low you have fallen. Cripes, I'm just speechless.


Mods: Sorry about the B**** subject line and content, but how could I discuss it without quoting it?

[BuyingThyme]

1. Everybody's been covering Coulter lately.

I don't hold it against them.

[niallmac]

2. heh, ha, ha ha. Haaaah HAAAAHAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

7. best.of.the.day!

:rofl:

[lumpy]

14. Coulter instantly popped into my mind

when I read the headline. Can't imagine why.

[Bake]

16. I would've bet a month's pay it was about Coulter! n/t

Bake

[upi402]

3. Oh thank you so much for that

:rofl: I needed a good laugh :rofl:
I stopped looking at tv news long ago and am open-gob when I see what they're up to.
Or 'down to' really.

[Sal Minella]

4. "Queen" is the correct term for an intact adult female cat and

"bitch" is the correct term for an intact adult female dog. I imagine the frightening show a mother dog makes while protecting her pups caused the word to be extended to describe less-than-pleasant women.

So somebody at CNN may have thought they were being cutesey, but they were actually being accurate if it was an adult female dog.

[omega minimo]

5. By not doing what you're supposedly criticizing

:puke:
"Mods: Sorry about the B**** subject line and content, but how could I discuss it without quoting it?"


By not deciding "to run a fluff piece under a hyperbolically sensational headline like that?"

"Cripes, I'm just speechless."

If only.

[NinetySix]

8. I take it you're not the one who gave me my heart.

If my subject line had been "Did you see that headline on CNN just now?!?" I doubt you'd have even looked at this thread. I wasn't trying to sucker anyone, just find out if anyone else had seen this gratuitous, titillating teaser headline on "The Most Trusted Name In News."

Incidentally, while CNN purports to be journalism, I do not purport to be a journalist, so your implicit criticism misses the mark.

[omega minimo]

10. So you used a "gratuitous, titillating teaser headline"

"I wasn't trying to sucker anyone, just find out if anyone else had seen this gratuitous, titillating teaser headline"

[NinetySix]

12. My comment was on the declining state of US journalism

You see, I wasn't actually doing any reporting myself, since I'm not a reporter. I'm just some anonymous person posting on a message board, not a professional making editorial decisions to better inform the American public in service of democracy. It's a little different. You're saying the pot's calling the kettle black, when in fact it's the orange calling the apple rotten. Apples and oranges.

[omega minimo]

13. You used the same tactic

Your choice. Surely you can see how doing the same thing you're commenting on (using the headline for your headline) is not at all "a little different"

Same Thing! :think:

[NinetySix]

17. I used the same subject line as I would have if posting in LBN.

If the headline had been "$100K Doggie Runs Away," then I probably wouldn't have even posted about it. It was the headline I was talking about, and it was the sensationalistic nature of the "new journalism" that I was tsk-tsking. How do you propose I talk about it and engage others in conversation about it without referring directly to the headline? I put it in quotes, after all, and without added punctuation like an exclamation point. If you think the thread is beneath your dignity or unworthy to reply to, simply skip it, or toggle the "ignore" button box.

Criticizing a news organization for scurrilous usage of titillating language unbecoming the Free Press is not hypocritical, for the simple reason that I am not a member of the Fourth Estate and therefore not under the same obligation to discuss in an objective, straightforward manner. I am at liberty to engage in discourse about any subject in any manner I see fit, including writing about the debasement of organs of truth dissemination by using a sensational headline (theirs, not mine) on a public message board.

If I were publishing a book under this title, you'd have a more relevant point.

[omega minimo]

18. Maybe CNN can rationalize it as well as you did

"Bitch On The Run"
“What kind of editorial decision is that, to run a <DU OP> under a hyperbolically sensational headline like that?”

“If my subject line had been "Did you see that headline on CNN just now?!?" I doubt you'd have even looked at this thread.”

So you used the same “gratuitous, titillating teaser headline.”

“How do you propose I talk about it and engage others in conversation about it without referring directly to the headline?”

You’re a good writer-- you can figure it out. Maybe like you did here:

“Mods: Sorry about the B**** subject line and content, but how could I discuss it without quoting it?”

“I put it in quotes, after all, and without added punctuation like an exclamation point.”

This is true and “marks" modify objectionable quotes when they're repeated on the Forum Title Page. (It's not uncommon for them to be used to grab eyeballs).

“It was the headline I was talking about, and it was the sensationalistic nature of the "new journalism" that I was tsk-tsking.”

All your justifications are about what happens AFTER one opens the thread; about your “writing about the debasement of organs of truth dissemination by using a sensational headline (theirs, not mine) on a public message board” --while using the same tactic and the same headline on said public message board.

It’s your choice, it’s a fine point, it’s overlooked-- but here since your subject IS the power of a headline, it isn’t too much of a stretch to ask you to acknowledge the power of the headline on the GD page. Perhaps it has a similar effect to the one that outraged you on CNN. As for "the debasement of organs of truth dissemination," DU Rules call it "cheapening the discourse for everyone."

Thank you for bringing it up.

:hi:

[Bake]

15. Geez, that was uncalled for.

I think the OP calls proper attention to the depths to which CNN has fallen. In dramatic fashion.

Or perhaps you're another one of those who likes to dictate what we can and cannot discuss here.

Bake

[KharmaTrain]

6. There Hasn't Been News On CNN Since 1997

Since Time came in and turned it into infotainment, CNN's news value has been attrocious. They've gotten rid of a lot of talented, experienced reporters with stenographers and pretty faces and assume their viewers have the attention span of a fruitfly.

[NinetySix]

9. I was once a CNN junkie.

It's interesting, really, that there seems to be a parallel between CNN and the United States. It's establishment was driven by ideals which, though never actually attainable, were always striven for. And though it fell short of those ideals, there were occasionally breathtakingly great moments during its golden age. But in latter days, money has corrupted and undermined it, until now, it seems as though those ideals have been entirely forgotten.

It's really very sad.

[Cleita]

11. I once was too. Now I don't even watch it to laugh at the

stupidity. I did send them a goodby letter, when I told them in great detail why I would never watch them again. I didn't even get a thank you for your letter, and we appreciate your comments, back from them. That was two years ago. So they don't give a f**k.