posts about or somewhat related to ‘CNN’

Ancona, who lives in Missouri, insists there’s a new Klan for modern times — a Klan that’s “about educating people to our ideas and getting people to see our point of view to … help change things.”
He said he and those like him can spread that message without violence — a sort of rebranding of the Klan. The idea may sound absurd, but is it conceivable?

Ashley Fantz, Can this KKK leader rebrand?, CNN

An analysis of the KKK from an organizational perspective, in light of the recent shooting in Kansas:

Last Sunday, the world was confronted with another image of the Klan: 73-year-old Frazier Glenn Cross, a white supremacist and avowed anti-Semite, in the back of a police car, spitting, “Heil Hitler!”

When his alleged rampage at two Jewish institutions in suburban Kansas City, Kansas, was over, three people were shot dead — a teenage boy and his grandfather along with a woman who worked with visually impaired children.

The carnage was devastating to many. Imperial Wizard Frank Ancona was upset, too.

"What this guy just did set back everything I’ve been trying to do for years," said Ancona, who leads the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

CNN tracked Ancona down on Twitter, where he has 840 followers, after he and other self-professed hate group leaders denounced the shootings in interviews withUSA Today and CNN affiliate WDAF in Kansas City, Missouri.

"I believe in racial separation but it doesn’t have to be violent," he told CNN. "People in the Klan are professional people, business people, working types. We are a legitimate organization."

Read on.

Cable on Climate Science

Via the Union of Concerned Scientists:

CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC are the most widely watched cable news networks in the U.S. Their coverage of climate change is an influential source of information for the public and policy makers alike.

To gauge how accurately these networks inform their audiences about climate change, UCS analyzed the networks’ climate science coverage in 2013 and found that each network treated climate science very differently.

Fox News was the least accurate; 72 percent of its 2013 climate science-related segments contained misleading statements. CNN was in the middle, with about a third of segments featuring misleading statements. MSNBC was the most accurate, with only eight percent of segments containing misleading statements.

Read the overview here, or jump to the study here (PDF).

Images: Science or Spin?: Assessing the Accuracy of Cable News Coverage of Climate Science, via Union of Concerned Scientists

Six of the seven shows analyzed — This Week, Face the Nation, Fox News Sunday, Meet the Press, State of the Union, and Up — have hosted white men at a significantly higher rate than their 31 percent portion of the population. Melissa Harris-Perry provided the greatest diversity among guests, providing a much higher rate of white women and African-American guests than the other programs; Up also hosted a higher percentage of people from those demographics than CNN or the broadcast programs. Latino, Asian-American, and Middle Eastern guests have been largely absent from the Sunday shows. Native Americans fared even worse, with only two appearances (one on Melissa Harris-Perry and one on Up) out of a total of 2,436 appearances over the nine-month period studied.

White Men Were An Even Larger Proportion Of Solo Interviews. On the broadcast Sunday shows and CNN, white men were most often hosted for one-on-one interviews by a significant margin. 75 percent of Face the Nation and Fox News Sunday solo interview subjects were white men. Once again, only Melissa Harris-Perry demonstrated any reasonable diversity in this measure. Guests who were Latino, Asian-American, or Middle Eastern were hardly present at all. No Native American has received a one-on-one interview this year. Up did not have enough solo interviews in the period studied to be included in the comparison.

Media Matters for America, Once Again, Sunday Morning Talk Shows Are White, Male, And Conservative.

Read through for CNN’s gender problem and the overall ideological tilt toward conservative (read: Republican) guests.

The UK’s War on Porn
Public wi-fi will soon ban access to porn in the UK, pornography depicting rape and child abuse will be outlawed, and all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will use a specialized filtering system called “default-on” that requires Internet users to “opt out” of the filter if they wish to view adult content. Those are just some of the terms on the list of reforms that British Prime Minister David Cameron announced on Monday.
Cameron also said, “The Daily Mail has campaigned hard to make Internet search engine filters ‘default on.’ Today they can declare that campaign a success.” 
Turns out, that’s not really true. 
According to The Independent, many of the ISPs didn’t actually agree to a “default-on” system, but agreed instead to something called Active Choice + — a software restriction allowing people to filter out violent or sexual content if they want to (meaning that not all providers filter porn by default). 
A Department of Education letter (that was leaked to BBC) was sent to these ISPs on behalf of Cameron, demanding that they promote their software protection as “default-on” when it’s really not. The letter says: 

The Prime Minister believes that there is much more that we can all do to improve how we communicate the current position on parental Internet controls and that there is a need for a simplified message to reassure parents and the public more generally. Without changing what you will be offering (i.e. Active-Choice +), the Prime Minister would like to be able to refer to your solutions as “default-on.” 

Basically, Cameron wants to give the public a false sense of protection against adult content by telling people the new filters have been fully implemented.
New York Magazine describes Cameron’s method as “soft paternalism,” a term defined by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s book, Nudge, as a way to incentivize people who are otherwise “inherently choice-averse” by changing the environment ever so slightly; the change could then influence people to behave in whatever way desired. So, in theory, if people are given the sense that their Internet doesn’t allow porn, perhaps they won’t go searching for it in the first place. 
Former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre Jim Gamble told CNN that the UK government is having this averse reaction to porn because in two recent child murder cases, it was discovered that the killers had viewed child porn before the murders occurred. So, what started as a fight against child pornographers escalated to a fight against all porn.
Gamble says that what the government is doing is ineffective. Blocking porn on the Internet doesn’t stop the child pornographers from abusing children, it merely erases some evidence of it. Child pornographers don’t use Google for their pornography; they’re generally very knowledgeable about the Internet, and typically host these images on peer to peer sites deep within the web. So even if Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Twitter, and Facebook, among others, agree to remove and report what they discover, they’re not finding the majority of the content. More money should be spent on rescuing these kids, and it’s not being done. 
FJP: One feeble method that’s in place to try to catch the perpetrators involves an online photo database of children that are thought to be at risk of abuse. If these child pornographers are as Internet savvy as Gamble says they are, and the government is creating an online gallery of children who are at risk, you might as well paint targets on their backs. - Krissy
Related FJP Porn Posts: Banning Porn, The Internet’s Effects on The Porn Industry
Image: NYMagazine

The UK’s War on Porn

Public wi-fi will soon ban access to porn in the UK, pornography depicting rape and child abuse will be outlawed, and all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will use a specialized filtering system called “default-on” that requires Internet users to “opt out” of the filter if they wish to view adult content. Those are just some of the terms on the list of reforms that British Prime Minister David Cameron announced on Monday.

Cameron also said, “The Daily Mail has campaigned hard to make Internet search engine filters ‘default on.’ Today they can declare that campaign a success.” 

Turns out, that’s not really true. 

According to The Independent, many of the ISPs didn’t actually agree to a “default-on” system, but agreed instead to something called Active Choice + — a software restriction allowing people to filter out violent or sexual content if they want to (meaning that not all providers filter porn by default). 

A Department of Education letter (that was leaked to BBC) was sent to these ISPs on behalf of Cameron, demanding that they promote their software protection as “default-on” when it’s really not. The letter says: 

The Prime Minister believes that there is much more that we can all do to improve how we communicate the current position on parental Internet controls and that there is a need for a simplified message to reassure parents and the public more generally. Without changing what you will be offering (i.e. Active-Choice +), the Prime Minister would like to be able to refer to your solutions as “default-on.” 

Basically, Cameron wants to give the public a false sense of protection against adult content by telling people the new filters have been fully implemented.

New York Magazine describes Cameron’s method as “soft paternalism,” a term defined by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s book, Nudge, as a way to incentivize people who are otherwise “inherently choice-averse” by changing the environment ever so slightly; the change could then influence people to behave in whatever way desired. So, in theory, if people are given the sense that their Internet doesn’t allow porn, perhaps they won’t go searching for it in the first place. 

Former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre Jim Gamble told CNN that the UK government is having this averse reaction to porn because in two recent child murder cases, it was discovered that the killers had viewed child porn before the murders occurred. So, what started as a fight against child pornographers escalated to a fight against all porn.

Gamble says that what the government is doing is ineffective. Blocking porn on the Internet doesn’t stop the child pornographers from abusing children, it merely erases some evidence of it. Child pornographers don’t use Google for their pornography; they’re generally very knowledgeable about the Internet, and typically host these images on peer to peer sites deep within the web. So even if Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Twitter, and Facebook, among others, agree to remove and report what they discover, they’re not finding the majority of the content. More money should be spent on rescuing these kids, and it’s not being done. 

FJP: One feeble method that’s in place to try to catch the perpetrators involves an online photo database of children that are thought to be at risk of abuse. If these child pornographers are as Internet savvy as Gamble says they are, and the government is creating an online gallery of children who are at risk, you might as well paint targets on their backs. - Krissy

Related FJP Porn Posts: Banning PornThe Internet’s Effects on The Porn Industry

Image: NYMagazine

ccindecision:

Something weird has happened to The Most Trusted Name in News.

Has something weird happened? Has the race to break news scraped the bottom of the barrel yet (of course not, there’s a long way to go).

In my inconsequential opinion, CNN has been one of the newsroom to most embrace technology and social media in recent years and as a result it is also the one suffering most from the process of pulling hard fact from rumour and hearsay as the time to do this work diminishes in the newsroom.

(via comedycentral)

Driving Stoned, CNN is on it

With legalization in effect in Colorado and Washington, CNN creates a “marijuana smoking lab”, gets volunteers high and tests their driving skills.

Journalism.

As a public service.

We’d like to have been in the editorial meeting when this story was pitched.

shortformblog:

Looks like Piers Morgan found found a voice louder than his: Morgan had Alex Jones on his show because Jones was one of the loonies behind that petition to get Piers deported for using his First Amendment rights to criticize the Second Amendment. (The White House responded last night, by the way.) Say what you will about Alex Jones, but I would watch this every single night, CNN, just because it’s so craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazy. How crazy? Well, at the airport, he wouldn’t take his shoes off.

FJP: Was going to post this this morning with something along the lines of, Piers Interviews Alex Jones, Insanity Ensues.

It doesn’t stop here. If you dipping your toes into the conspiracy is your thing, hit up Jones’ Inforwars site for a follow up video.

In it, Jones and his video producer are holed up in their NYC hotel room talking about how Bloomberg’s “mafia” (read: the NYPD) are monitoring him, and if it’s reported he’s been killed in some sort of gang or drug violence, the truth will be revealed.

Yes, I spent too much time up last night going through it all. — Michael

Alex Jones, creator of "Deport Piers Morgan" petition has his moment on CNN →

As one of FJP’s British contributors, it pains me to say that Piers Morgan has performed a masterclass here.

Some debates are great because you allow the person you’re arguing with the room to blow up and personify your own argument and this is what Piers has done with Alex Jones.

Media Criticism
Via Adam Schweigert.

Media Criticism

Via Adam Schweigert.

CNN Shares Ambassador Stevens Personal Journal

Last night I was watching CNN and Anderson Cooper said something that made me think, “Did he just say what I think he said?!”. The transcript is as follows:

On Wednesday of this week, we reported that a source familiar with Ambassador Stevens’ thinking said in the months before his death, Ambassador Stevens talked about being worried about what he called the never-ending security threats in Benghazi.

We also reported that the ambassador specifically mentioned the rise in Islamic extremism, the growing Al Qaeda presence in Libya and said he was on an Al Qaeda hit list. The information for that report, like all of CNN’s reporting, was carefully vetted. Some of that information was found in a personal journal of Ambassador Stevens in his handwriting.

We came upon the journal through our reporting and notified the family. At their request, we returned that journal to them. We reported what we found newsworthy in the ambassador’s writings. A reporter followed up on what we found newsworthy, as I said, in the ambassador’s writings.

I wrote my brother, Michael, the following:

if i just heard Anderson Cooper correctly, on his show, talking about libya, he cited that Christopher Stevens had security fears. Then AC said one of the CNN sources for Christopher Stevens thinking prior to his death was his personal journal, found by CNN, evidently read through, and then returned to the family. AC kept making it clear that they’re only reporting things that are “newsworthy” from the personal journal they found of a dead man. Still, WTF?? it’s ok to read through the dudes journal, and then report on what it said, but only “newsworthy” things found in it??? and then returned to the family, so all is ok for reading the dead guys journal that they found at the site and sharing with their audience.

markcoatney:

In which a single statement explains so, so much.

FJP: Wolf, being Wolf, and totally unaware of it.

markcoatney:

In which a single statement explains so, so much.

FJP: Wolf, being Wolf, and totally unaware of it.

producermatthew:

So this just happened on CNN.

FJP: Will Ferrell & Zack Galifianakis respond. Oh my.

producermatthew:

So this just happened on CNN.

FJP: Will Ferrell & Zack Galifianakis respond. Oh my.

(Source: matthewkeys)

Good Effing Grief
Via Andrew Sullivan:

This very connection prompted CNN to ask [David] Gergen to do some reporting on Bain. And - surprise! - Gergen simply ignores the key evidence on the table: Romney’s own sworn testimony that he kept involved in Bain activities and attended Bain company board meetings and remained CEO, sole owner and chairman of Bain all the way through till 2002. If you own a company, benefit from its profits, and are paid a salary, declaring that you had left it is an untrue SEC filing. Which is a felony.

Good effing grief, indeed.

Good Effing Grief

Via Andrew Sullivan:

This very connection prompted CNN to ask [David] Gergen to do some reporting on Bain. And - surprise! - Gergen simply ignores the key evidence on the table: Romney’s own sworn testimony that he kept involved in Bain activities and attended Bain company board meetings and remained CEO, sole owner and chairman of Bain all the way through till 2002. If you own a company, benefit from its profits, and are paid a salary, declaring that you had left it is an untrue SEC filing. Which is a felony.

Good effing grief, indeed.

Everyone Slow Down, Redux Edition

This is an update to our post earlier this morning about slowing down, digesting and getting things right before rushing to report.

CNN didn’t and instead ran banner headlines on its site about the Supreme Court striking down the individual mandate.

Fox too but, well, somehow that’s less surprising.