Thread: CNN Dishonest Reporting makes it appear as though John Cena admits to taking steroids

Wow that's pretty messed up.

I agree that CNN is awful. A former AIPAC lobbyist is one of its main reporters, especially in Middle Eastern Issues.

And yes, editing and insinuated questions, can really alter someone's message.

Thats awful. Seriously. He made some good points and they totally ignored them because they had their own agenda of what they wanted him to say before they even had the interview.

This sort of thing is one step away from just flat out lying.

Its supposed to be information, this sort of censorship or bending the truth or whatever you wanna call it makes me sick.

I never trusted the media.

When a crime occurs here they either get the names wrong or they go to the first eyewitness for false info.

Originally Posted by Gazhole

Thats awful. Seriously. He made some good points and they totally ignored them because they had their own agenda of what they wanted him to say before they even had the interview.

This sort of thing is one step away from just flat out lying.

Its supposed to be information, this sort of censorship or bending the truth or whatever you wanna call it makes me sick.

Gaz I'd have to say this is past lying. They took what he said and edited it to be the opposite of what he intended to say. They were as dishonest to us as you can get in the media business.

I'd have CNN in civil court.

You may be right man, either way this is appalling.

The worst part is that he seemed like a really genuine guy.

Is it bad that I could care less?

Originally Posted by IainDaniel

Is it bad that I could care less?

I care about it, I work in the news business (as a technician). I've seen things like this happen all over the place.

This kind of thing will affect everyone from pro wrestler to bodybuilder to mma fighter, any sport and any level of competition. It can easily make us all look very bad. I think that's worth caring about.

Originally Posted by IainDaniel

Is it bad that I could care less?

As a Canadian Iain, I wonder how the Canadian media operates. I'd like to learn more. I presume the Canadian media is less biased, and has less advocacy journalism than in the US. The US Media has really gone down the tubes, IMO.

The entire national media is garbage, not just CNN. I think this goes on constantly.

It isn't about informing the public anymore, its about getting the ratings.

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

As a Canadian Iain, I wonder how the Canadian media operates. I'd like to learn more. I presume the Canadian media is less biased, and has less advocacy journalism than in the US. The US Media has really gone down the tubes, IMO.

tis a media business. whatever attracts viewers. same shit here as it is there.

There exists no more real reporters anymore...no one seeks out truthiness anymore...all that they are after is a quick story that they can spin off into a whole segment of easy stories....I mean they might as well just all start working for tabloids....

Originally Posted by tallcall

I care about it, I work in the news business (as a technician). I've seen things like this happen all over the place.

This kind of thing will affect everyone from pro wrestler to bodybuilder to mma fighter, any sport and any level of competition. It can easily make us all look very bad. I think that's worth caring about.

I guess I just don't give a crap bout stupid shit.

Originally Posted by IainDaniel

I guess I just don't give a crap bout stupid shit.

Iain most things are stupid shit to you. And no ... we don't care that you don't care. Me? I'd rather the media ... mainstream media that is ... be held to some basic level of accountability for their actions. Mainstream news is now more like The National Inquirer than fact based news. That doesn't bug you then that's okay and again, no ... we don't give a shit that you don't give a shit.

Originally Posted by min0 lee

I never trusted the media.

When a crime occurs here they either get the names wrong or they go to the first eyewitness for false info.

You're just mad they got your name wrong when they aired the story about the cross dressing rapist on the loose.

The media serves those who finance and control it, who also happen to have powerful societal interests. Sometimes not delivering the news, and instead, airing stories about sensationalism is in their best interest. It's in their best interest to keep the public ignorant and uninformed. That way the masses don't become upset, and instead remain slaves to consumerism.


I mean seriously, most people don't know where Burma is on a map, yet alone have ever heard of it. Yet there is a crisis going on in that country. When genocides occur in other countries, it would be lucky to get 1/100th the air time of the latest britney spears latest debacle. You hear about OJ, Britney, Lindsay. You don't hear about Niger, Burma, or Pakistan, etc.

Originally Posted by BigDyl

The media serves those who finance and control it, who also happen to have powerful societal interests. Sometimes not delivering the news, and instead, airing stories about sensationalism is in their best interest. It's in their best interest to keep the public ignorant and uninformed. That way the masses don't become upset, and instead remain slaves to consumerism.


I mean seriously, most people don't know where Burma is on a map, yet alone have ever heard of it. Yet there is a crisis going on in that country. When genocides occur in other countries, it would be lucky to get 1/100th the air time of britney spears latest debacle. You hear about OJ, Britney, Lindsay. You don't hear about Niger, Burma, or Pakistan, etc.

Ohhhh come one now BigDyl. Give us all a little credit here. We have managed to evolve somewhat. We've gone from being uninformed to unconcerned. Hey that's a change ... of sorts.

Originally Posted by BigDyl

You're just mad they got your name wrong when they aired the story about the cross dressing rapist on the loose.

Your damn right! It's min0 lee! Not mino lee!

Originally Posted by BigDyl

I mean seriously, most people don't know where Burma is on a map, yet alone have ever heard of it. Yet there is a crisis going on in that country. When genocides occur in other countries, it would be lucky to get 1/100th the air time of the latest britney spears latest debacle. You hear about OJ, Britney, Lindsay. You don't hear about Niger, Burma, or Pakistan, etc.

They want to be called Myanmar now you dumb ignorant arrogant piece of donkey spunk residue....read something from time to time and you might've known that....

Originally Posted by min0 lee

Your damn right! It's min0 lee! Not mino lee!

It's not Minzero but Min-oh? Damn all this time I've been hearing it in my inner dialog as Minzero...

Originally Posted by maniclion

It's not Minzero but Min-oh? Damn all this time I've been hearing it in my inner dialog as Minzero...

I'm hurt.

Originally Posted by BigDyl

The media serves those who finance and control it, who also happen to have powerful societal interests. Sometimes not delivering the news, and instead, airing stories about sensationalism is in their best interest. It's in their best interest to keep the public ignorant and uninformed. That way the masses don't become upset, and instead remain slaves to consumerism.


I mean seriously, most people don't know where Burma is on a map, yet alone have ever heard of it. Yet there is a crisis going on in that country. When genocides occur in other countries, it would be lucky to get 1/100th the air time of the latest britney spears latest debacle. You hear about OJ, Britney, Lindsay. You don't hear about Niger, Burma, or Pakistan, etc.

I think you're over-simplifying it a little. When long, in depth stories are aired, our viewership tends to drop off the map. I wonder if people just don't want to see anything that serious on the news anymore (I blame the generational change - mostly older people watch the news nowadays). If viewership drops, then we have a very difficult time keeping financial supporters happy (advertisers - they are the ones with ALL the power in the news business, if they decide to pull out of sponsoring a segment, that segment or show will probably be axed).

Besides, if people wanted in depth coverage with as little political bias as possible, all they need to do is watch PBS - and the best part is that it's free for all. Of course no one watches, and why should they, it has no cool explosions or flashy graphics. People in general don't care at all about what is happening outside of their town or state, and possibly country (but that's still stretching it).

It's a sad state, but it's a state we're living in.

By the way, I have a Master's degree in Communication focusing on Mass Communication. I've done some studies on the spiral of silence theory (which could be applied to this particular problem), Cultivation Theory, Uses and Gratifications Theory (an aspect of the Hypodermic Needle Theory), Priming, Elaboration Likelihood Model, Framing, Agenda-Setting Theory, Cognitive Dissonance Theory, and Social Cognitive Theory. Those are just the ones I've worked with, there are many more.

Originally Posted by tallcall

I think you're over-simplifying it a little. When long, in depth stories are aired, our viewership tends to drop off the map. I wonder if people just don't want to see anything that serious on the news anymore (I blame the generational change - mostly older people watch the news nowadays). If viewership drops, then we have a very difficult time keeping financial supporters happy (advertisers - they are the ones with ALL the power in the news business, if they decide to pull out of sponsoring a segment, that segment or show will probably be axed).

Besides, if people wanted in depth coverage with as little political bias as possible, all they need to do is watch PBS - and the best part is that it's free for all. Of course no one watches, and why should they, it has no cool explosions or flashy graphics. People in general don't care at all about what is happening outside of their town or state, and possibly country (but that's still stretching it).

It's a sad state, but it's a state we're living in.

By the way, I have a Master's degree in Communication focusing on Mass Communication. I've done some studies on the spiral of silence theory (which could be applied to this particular problem), Cultivation Theory, Uses and Gratifications Theory (an aspect of the Hypodermic Needle Theory), Priming, Elaboration Likelihood Model, Framing, Agenda-Setting Theory, Cognitive Dissonance Theory, and Social Cognitive Theory. Those are just the ones I've worked with, there are many more.

I watch PBs and I listen to NPR. It is the closest to real news I have ever found. Plus NPR has some cool non-news shows like speaking of faith. I love that show.

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

Iain most things are stupid shit to you. And no ... we don't care that you don't care. Me? I'd rather the media ... mainstream media that is ... be held to some basic level of accountability for their actions. Mainstream news is now more like The National Inquirer than fact based news. That doesn't bug you then that's okay and again, no ... we don't give a shit that you don't give a shit.

I don't care that you don't care that I don't give a shit

This might have already been said, but I listened to a radio show that was interviewing him (might have been opie & anthony) and he said that WWE's camera crew was there taping it to avoid this sort of thing.

Originally Posted by maniclion

They want to be called Myanmar now you dumb ignorant arrogant piece of donkey spunk residue....read something from time to time and you might've known that....

Geewilikers, sorry I was watching the news and they said something about Burma. I thought they meant winter was begining to set in in massachusetts.

Originally Posted by tallcall

I think you're over-simplifying it a little. When long, in depth stories are aired, our viewership tends to drop off the map. I wonder if people just don't want to see anything that serious on the news anymore (I blame the generational change - mostly older people watch the news nowadays). If viewership drops, then we have a very difficult time keeping financial supporters happy (advertisers - they are the ones with ALL the power in the news business, if they decide to pull out of sponsoring a segment, that segment or show will probably be axed).

Besides, if people wanted in depth coverage with as little political bias as possible, all they need to do is watch PBS - and the best part is that it's free for all. Of course no one watches, and why should they, it has no cool explosions or flashy graphics. People in general don't care at all about what is happening outside of their town or state, and possibly country (but that's still stretching it).

It's a sad state, but it's a state we're living in.

By the way, I have a Master's degree in Communication focusing on Mass Communication. I've done some studies on the spiral of silence theory (which could be applied to this particular problem), Cultivation Theory, Uses and Gratifications Theory (an aspect of the Hypodermic Needle Theory), Priming, Elaboration Likelihood Model, Framing, Agenda-Setting Theory, Cognitive Dissonance Theory, and Social Cognitive Theory. Those are just the ones I've worked with, there are many more.

Well I can't argue with your knowledge in communications, and I understand that viewership is an important variable in the media, however, I can't help but notice how well this plays into certain peoples hands. Also take note that informative programmning doesn't have to be boring. Look at The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. That is both informative and entertaining.

I guess it is more complicated than my orginal observation, but I think this has been cultivated all along to steal a word from one of your communications theorys. People have been raised to believe there is a quick fix for everything, including ignorance.