CNN is pretending now to care about the peoples' health care

[Uncle Joe]

Last edited Wed Jan 18, 2023, 04:53 PM - Edit history (1)

so they're raising all the risks for people thinking about or trying to raise their own chickens.

There were two deaths attributed to that for 2022 from Salmonella, no word yet from corporate media conglomerate CNN addressing the tens of thousands of Americans that die every year for lack of health care.

(snip)

A 2009 study conducted by researchers at Harvard Medical School found 45,000 Americans die every year as a direct result of not having any health insurance coverage. In 2018, 27.8 million Americans went without any health insurance for the entire year.

One of those Americans was the father of Ashley Hudson, who died in 2002 due to an untreated liver disease, an illness that went undiagnosed until a few weeks before his death. It was only discovered when he went to the emergency room because he was unable to afford to see a doctor due to lack of insurance coverage and inability to afford treatment out of pocket.

Now Hudson’s mother, Sue Olvera, who works at McDonald’s and has no insurance coverage, is facing similar cost barriers while struggling with kidney issues and type 2 diabetes.

“She’s had pain for a long time, but she doesn’t usually go to the doctor unless it gets excruciating because she can’t afford to go,” said Ashley Hudson.

(snip)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/07/americans-healthcare-medical-costs

[Just A Box Of Rain]

1. That's quite the convoluted trip to smear CNN.

I guess the discredited right-wing originated conspiracy theory is starting to lose its legs?

Now it is chickens.

[Uncle Joe]

2. Have you seen any coverage from CNN regarding our nation's dysfunctional health care system?

We do lose tens of thousands of Americans every year because of our greed based system, that's no conspiracy theory.

[Ocelot II]

7. Yup. Google is your friend; they've done a number of stories about it.

But if you don't like CNN you shouldn't watch it.

[Uncle Joe]

9. I've already Googled it and the airtime doesn't compare, not even close. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

4. They will spend infinitely more precious air time

covering a tragic murder because they're too compromised from selling Big Pharma commercials.

That inherent conflict of interest which they never speak of prevents them from actually taking on the most powerful corporate interests in our nation, no matter how dysfunctional.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

12. That I agree with. Commercial ads create unspoken conflict of interest like political ads do.

[Doc Sportello]

18. What hypocrisy

You've been smearing CNN for it's past coverage of the RW attempted coup and extemism of the sort we haven't seen since the Civil War as over the top. When, in fact, it was the coverage the extremists deserved. Segments like Briana Keilar's Roll the Tape, which used repub's own words to indict them for their lies, extemism and threats to democracy; and contributions from Jim Sciutto and others were totally factual and on point in their takedowns of the same.

In case you misssed it, the repubs have been dismissing, ignoring and sometimes inciting the very violence we saw on Jan. 6 and it continues today, as we have seen with the New Mexico candidate. Noty to mention voter suppression and many other anti-democratic tactics. CNN has been having on more and more repubs who do at least one of those things, the kind of liars they wouldn't have had on before.

For some odd reason, your defense of CNN's current swing and smearing of their past excellent journalism at this critical time in our history is an obsession with you. You never offer anything factual to back up your smears on their past work; just snark at the posters who point it out. And you ignore segments like Keilar's in your smears. Why? Is Licht a buddy or relative? Do you think the repubs aren't really that bad, or maybe you are a both sider? And please don't talk about journalism or ratings. You haven't shown that you are informed on the subject.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

20. Huh? I've done no such things.

CNN's coverage of the J6 insurrection and right-wing extremism has been excellent and I applaud the coverage.

The recent J6 special was very well done.

You must have me confused with someone else.

[Doc Sportello]

21. I got the right guy and you know it

I stand by everything I wrote. When are you going to answer the questions I and others have asked regarding why you are such a fan of both-siderism and so obsessed about current criticism of CNN. Instead it's just all snark and unsubstantiated opinions.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

22. It is a outright lie to claim that I'm a fan of "both siderism."

I am a fan of quality journalism and think that Licht's stated goals of improving the the standards of journalism at CNN, including dialing back the sensationalism, are positive steps.

Do you oppose high quality journalism?

[Doc Sportello]

23. Dodging questions isn't good journalism

Yet you seem to think you are some kind of judge of quality journalism. While at the same time proving my point. I said you have attacked CNN for supposedly sensationalizing the attacks on democracy, and you said you did no such thing. Then in this post you do exactly that.

I pointed out the good work journaliists like Keilar did and you ask if I oppose good journalism. That's a lame deflection and shows you have no interest in honest debate. So there go your credentials for judging what is and is not good, honest journalism. And who is Licht to be some kind of judge of "improving" journalism at CNN. Your other posts have shown you despise what is termed "the left" and that you are not a lay person - by your own admission in another thread.

So be honest this time. What is your stake in these threads on CNN that you obsess over them. You supposedly worked in the industry. Buddies with Licht or Malone? Hatred of the left? A financial interest that dovetals with your hatred of the left? Come on, redeem yourself. Answer honestly, without deflection or denying what you've written in the past.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

24. I did not "attack CNN for supposedly sensationalizing the attacks on democracy."

That's your invention. CNN notoriously ran "Breaking News!" banners during the Zucker-era, when they were often unwarranted. Licht has pledged to dial back that practice.

Do you prefer sensationalism?

Rather than attacking CNN for its coverage of right-wing extremism (including, but not limited to the J6 insurrection) I have praised it.

My stake in CNN is simply a belief that this country needs a free press that reports important stories honestly, with a minimum of bias, and a careful vetting of sources. Good journalism.

It is hard to maintain a liberal democracy without an informed citizenry and the authoritarian/totalitarian impulses of populist extremists are an ever present threat to our party and our country in my estimation.

When news organizations report the truth, it helps Democrats. We are the party of truth and reason. Some people don't seem to like that.

Thanks for asking.

[Doc Sportello]

25. You literally used the term in your post

Here's your own words:
"the standards of journalism at CNN, including dialing back the sensationalism" YOUR OWN WORDS.

You are just playing a shell game by trotting out the banner BS when what is important is the role CNN played in telling the truth during the dump years. So, once again, you smear past CNN efforts with the sensational reporting bullshit. So please, with all your supposed expertise in journalism, tell us what stories were CNN reporters dishonest about? Or biased about? You like to talk about smearing and dishonesty. Link to those stories. Which won't happen because you can't. Dishonesty indeed.

Oh, yeah they ran "Breaking News" banners. You put that out there as if that somehow proves your point about bad journalism by reporters or anchors who have no say-so in that. But Licht is somehow coming in and saving them from that. What a joke. It's something they had been doing for a long time, yet you never seemed to mind before. Now, with good honest journalists like Brian Stelter kicked out by Licht, you go on a crusade to smear them with false claims.

And please spare us the sanctimonious admonitions about journalism. One doesn't get this obsessed because they used to run chryons too much. It's clear you have other motivations than your "idea" of good jouralism. Oh, and you're welcome.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

26. Dialing back the sensationalism of "Breaking News!" banners, when there was no major event,

which happened daily. You just make false assumptions and run with them.

I have not "smeared" CNN's past efforts. That's entirely false. I think they often (and still) tend to run with one story and beat it to death, but they are improving.

I entirely approve of exposing the crimes of Donald J Trump, now and then, and appreciate the coverage of right-wing extremist violence.

The recent J6 special was terrific. Have you seen it?

You are correct about reporters not being responsible for the "Breaking News!" banners, that's a responsibility borne by the president of the network and the producers who work under him. Licht has changed course, from the top, and it is a good move. Don't you agree?

I have never "smeared" Brian Stelter. That's a totally false claim and a pure invention on your part.

I already told you what I expect of good journalism. Nothing at all congruent with your wild accusations.

[Doc Sportello]

27. Trying to make banners justification for your smearing is beyond ridiculous

You branded an entire network as sensationalist, then claim breaking news banners as evidence. I pointed out how that is not just wrong but silly. But when that's all you got - which it is - you rely on the ridiculous. So you try to shift the focus there instead of where it belongs, which is on your repeated false assertions about CNN's coverage of the dump years. Wonder why.

I know this may be too much for you, but I used Brian Stelter as an example of what Licht - who you think is great - did to the network in letting him go. I never said you smeared him; you just use blanket smearing, and do it quite often as has been documented.

You do love accusing other people of making wild accusations and of lying. A tactic common of the other side. It's used to deflect and you do that a lot. Again, you have nothing else. You never post a link, or back up any of the many accusations you make with facts or examples. Just the same lame deflections and opinions given as if they are absolute facts. You can repeat them again and again. Some people use that tactic to "win" but at the expense of truth. And, of course, you always bring the snark, which is like someone who uses profanity all the time because they aren't able to provide facts or reasonable dialogue.

You have set yourself up on this site as the arbiter of good journalism. You have proffered no credentials, other than to claim you are not a "lay" person on the subject. Yet all you provide no credentials in the area. And when asked for reasons for this obsession you just repeat more of the same BS about "good journalism". Which is proving to be meaningless, based on your past comments. I'm sure we'll hear again about the banners. OMG, the banners. Pathetic.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

28. You are making wild and false claims.

Not sure what’s up with that?

I did not claim all of CNN’s coverage was “sensationalistic,” but rather that Licht has a reasonable goal in dialing back the aspects (such as “Breaking News!” banners) when they are not justified. That’s a positive development in my estimation. Do you disagree?

I did not smear Brian Stelter, either directly or indirectly. You once again invent wild claims about things I have never said. That is strange.

As to my credentials, I spent my entire career workingin film and television. I have been a principle filmmaker on an Academy Award winning feature documentary film, and on another Academy Award nominated film and multiple Emmy winning and nominated programs. In addition, I have had a life long interest in politics, journalism, and foreign affairs. I earned a degree in International Relations (Political Science) from a leading university in the field and was offered a position in government that I turned down, before I entered my career working as a documentarian and in television.

I think I know good journalism when I see it.

Thanks for asking.

[Doc Sportello]

29. Projection is the wrong way to go

You're the one who continues to make false claims. I explained the Stelter reference and it would make sense to an honest person. You however repeat the lie you told before so there is no hope in trying to explain to you.

You didn't ask but my career was in print journalism, a master's degree in journalism from one of the best j schools in the country and as a journalism teacher. Working in film and television does not make you an expert on the subject, nor does a lifelong interest. I believe you have a vested interest in the subject - and it is not in promoting good journalism. Stelter is a perfect example. The very first thing Light did was to fire Stelter, a respected journalist who would sometimes criticize his on network. Now THAT is good, honest and fair journalism, don't you agree?

But when you are trying to point CNN in a different direction for reasons other than journalism, the first thing you do is you fire the guy who would report on the changes. And that's what he did because he didn't want the public to know what was going on at CNN. Now he wants to put a comedian on for two hours every night. Great journalism there, right? And of course you obsess over the banners for the umpteenth time and for the reason I cited. You got nothing else. Yes, they were stupid and the exact same thing many stations across the country do. But banners are not the motivation here and to keep on bringing them up shows how shallow your perspective is.

"I think I know good journalism when I see it." Yeah, every person out there from RW nutjobs to repub officials say the same. They don't know. And the thanks for asking thing is as pertinent as the banners. Just more snark, which is your real talent.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

30. No, the false claim about Stelters claim make no sense at all.

The additional claim of “projection,” is precisely what you are doing here. Egads!

You are accusing me of having ulterior motives, which is not only false, and insulting, but is also a violation of this forum’s TOS. Do better.

I’m done indulging you.

[Doc Sportello]

31. It makes sense, you just aren't able to admit it

You accused another poster of being a lay person, saying you were not; in fact your own resume includes not one stint as a journalist. So you were dishonest there too.

The stuff about the TOS would be hilarious for its hypocrisy if it weren't so screwed up. You insult other posters on here in virtually every post I've seen where you disagree with them. Once again, projection at its finest. YOU are the one who needs to do better. A LOT better. You question people's motives often from what I've seen. There's that project thingy again.

And you are "indulging" me?

OMG what you have revealed here is just sad. Just try to disagree honestly and without the snark. You will be better for it.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

32. A lawyer who doesn't watch CNN accused me of being a "lay person," in point of fact.

To which I responded that I worked in the television and film industry in Hollywood for 40 years. Not exactly a lay person when it comes to the industry, with all due respect. One would think that someone who claims to have been a journalist would due a better job representing the facts.

And I certainly am indulging you, given the insults and untruths you've levied about me.

For you to complain about "snark" is pure chutzpah.

[Doc Sportello]

33. Another falsehood

I thought you were done "indulging" me. I knew better.

So a lawyer accused you of being a journalist. Well that makes you one. OMG. It just gets worse.

You just keep digging deeper. If you want snark go back and look at your posts. It is almost all snark. But that would take an honest appraisal on your part. Indulge me that way. Doubt you will do that either. It would almost be amusing if it weren't so sad.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

34. Again, you have the facts entirely wrong.

I'm questioning the journalism experience you claim. You got every fact wrong, yet again.

Please go make up things someone else. I'm not interested.

[Doc Sportello]

35. Not interested as in not indulging

Ok, so now you're not interested. Which you will prove wrong by responding. Just like you were done indulging. Sorry but a good journalists points out facts and of the two of us I am the only one who has done that. All you do is say "you lie" after I point out your lies (such as you implying you were a journalist). I pointed out your frequent use of snark when you talk about TOS and you deny that too, even though it's easily found in your posts.

As to my credentials, I would be happy to make a bet. I'll give you my credentials if you stop replying. The problem with that is you have shown your word cannot be trusted, and it's obvious you simply must have the last word. So what to do?

[Ocelot II]

3. What does the Guardian article have to do with raising chickens?

We all know the US health care system (which isn't even really a system) sucks. What does any of this have to do with raising chickens, apart from the fact that you do have to be careful when dealing with them because you can get salmonella, and if you get salmonella you'll have to deal with our crappy health care "system." But everybody who raises chickens (I know several, one just half a block from me) knows about the precautions you have to take. Why is this even an issue?

[Uncle Joe]

5. It's all about the corporate media's priorities. n/t

[Ocelot II]

6. Oh, I get it. CNN, which is evil, did a story about how you can get salmonella

if you aren't careful when raising chickens, which is true, instead of doing a story about our ineffective health care system, which they should have done but didn't because they are evil. Do I have that right?

Except that a quick Google search reveals that CNN has often done stories about the deficiencies and problems of our health care system.

[Uncle Joe]

8. CNN has obvious financial conflicts of interest (which they never speak of) and

their allotted air time for covering macro dynamics which adversely affect infinitely greater numbers of Americans along with peoples of other nations compared to micro, nearsighted events is tragically ridiculous.

It's all about selling emotion, not reason.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

11. Yes, that sums it up nicely, but be kind,

[Alexander Of Assyria]

10. The CNN article literally begins by noting the deaths caused by lack of health care???

CNN bashing is becoming a overhyped, loud but not in the majority left wing conspiracy theory, in my theory.

[Uncle Joe]

13. Did they address their own financial conflict of interest in contributing to

the high cost of health care?

[questionseverything]

14. The article is from the guardian

[Uncle Joe]

15. Thanks for the catch questionseverything, I should've been more clear in the OP

that the chicken story from CNN is what they aired on T.V. earlier today so as not confuse people with the Guardian article in the OP.

[questionseverything]

16. Np uncle joe

As someone that is constantly worried about bankruptcy from medical bills, I appreciate your post

The replies that seem to infer it’s no big deal are extremely hurtful

[Ocelot II]

17. Nobody is suggesting it isn't a big deal - clearly it is.

But should we expect the media to fix the problem, and is it useful to be outraged when they don't publicize it to our satisfaction? Or should we direct our efforts toward other solutions?

[Doc Sportello]

19. Being outraged certainly has worked for the RW

Or doing things to their staisfaction. That's how we eneded up with the both siderism we see. And you can work on other solutions while also criticizing media coverage.