|
|
|
| |
Advertisment
|
| |
Wikipedia
CNN International (CNNI) is an English language television network that carries news, current affairs and business programming world-wide. It is owned by Time Warner, and is affiliated and shares much content with CNN, which is limited to the United...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_International
|
| |
Links
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Downloads
|
| |
Definition
No definitions found for cnn international.<br /><hr width="80%" />
|
| |
Questions & Answers
What is the difference between BBC & CNN International?
What are the differences between the reporting of the BBC and CNN International? Which one is known to be more analytical? Do both practice censorship? Do both cut away from unsantized scenes while reporting the news? Do they both show the people they interview? How are they viewed in the U.S. in terms of all the characteristics mentioned above?
P.S. I have watched them both I find BBC to be quite daring in its reporting.
The BBC is unbiased and isn't controlled by commercial interests. It doesn't have commercials. The BBC is known for it's quality reporting and in-depth analysis. Not having to stop for commercial breaks helps, of course. And they choose their reporters for their intelligence, not their looks.
Why are international news networks in the USA e.g CNN,USA providing a limited array of stories?
I was shocked when i was in the US to discover that news in the USA does not give a true picture of what is happening in the world like the way BBC and Al Jazeera and to a limited degree CNN (international) do. May be it explains why the majority of Americans actually believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 yet the rest of the world knew otherwise.
Ignorance and apathy is one aspect... for the most part we don't ask ourselves "what news am I NOT getting?" and we don't know (or care about) what we don't know, so we don't demand better or expect better than to be a captive audience served up to advertisers. Even more incideous, over the past several decades, conglomerates have steadily 'gobbled up' print, radio and TV media resulting in more 'homogenized' and less variety of perspectives. Currently, our FCC steadily pushes toward a December goal of to relax restrictions even further which will allow the conglomerates to buy even more outlets in concentrated areas. I don't watch mainstream media for these reasons, but my guess is they are giving the "fairness doctrine" more attention than the FCC selling out to corporate pressure... the REAL 'fairness' issue.
At one time our airwaves were deemed to be 'public domain' and broadcasters had to prove they were serving the public interest as a condition for license renewal. Now, license renewals are little more than mailing in a card to be rubber-stamped. If you saw the movie "Network" (Peter Finch, Faye Dunaway, William Holden) released about thirty years ago... the concepts of 'corporate ownership' and 'news for profit' that were presented as Orwellian "what if" scenarios in that movie have now become the sad reality of US mass media today.
Does anyone find it interesting that CNN International, BBC and Sky News have studiously avoided bro
General Petraeus' testimony, even though they've shown his picture numous times on TV today? Yesterday he was heard as he politely put Tom Lantos in his place after Lantos called him a liar, but today, whatever remarks he made to Barak Hussein Obama after Obama tried to minimalize the general's efforts were pointedly not broadcast on the air. Why are the media not letting people hear what he has to say? NOTE: This question is for the grownups.
It is part and parcel of their Liberal bias.
The last time the Liberals attacked a military man in uniform was the attempted crucifying of Col. Oliver North. Their attempt at that assassination resulted in Col. North almost becoming a US Senator!!!
This time they didn't want the military man's words to reach the public without the Liberal spin. They wanted to interpret what he said, spin it a little, and spoon feed it to us. The last thing they want is for General Petraeus to become a sympathetic figure.
|
|
