Just one more reason why you should NEVER watch mainstream media.

[Arctish]

I see you ignored the second half of my post.

Were you or were you not confused by my statement regarding Mrs. Robertson and "He"?

Not at all. But if you had played a sound clip of Mrs. Robertson speaking, and you said "that was Mrs. Robertson" I would not assume you meant Mr. Robertson even if you called her the person wearing the pants in that family.

I maintain my claim that pronouns do not have to refer to a noun that has already been mentioned. I maintain my original claim. If the newscaster had said, "That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when he signed the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act into law," this clip would never had made it as a You-tube video.

Also, this was a live broadcast on a 24 hour news network. Mistakes happen. This sort of thing doesn't go through a committee before getting broadcast. And it frankly to me wasn't worth blowing their 7 second censorship delay on something so trivial. Especially since she didn't say anything censor-worthy.

So you're okay with the stupid? That's fine. To each his own.

I'm not so okay with it. I expect better from my news outlets, and if this is what I can expect from CNN, I'll go elsewhere for my news.

 

[zorq]

Not at all.

Clearly you did ignore it as you didn't answer my question.

But if you had played a sound clip of Mrs. Robertson speaking, and you said "that was Mrs. Robertson" I would not assume you meant Mr. Robertson even if you called her the person wearing the pants in that family.

And you clearly didn't answer my question again just now. I stand by my statement. A noun does not need to have been already referenced for a pronoun to refer to it.

I maintain my claim that pronouns do not have to refer to a noun that has already been mentioned. I maintain my original claim. If the newscaster had said, "That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when he signed the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act into law," this clip would never had made it as a You-tube video.

Also, this was a live broadcast on a 24 hour news network. Mistakes happen. This sort of thing doesn't go through a committee before getting broadcast. And it frankly to me wasn't worth blowing their 7 second censorship delay on something so trivial. Especially since she didn't say anything censor-worthy.

So you're okay with the stupid? That's fine. To each his own.

I'm not so okay with it. I expect better from my news outlets, and if this is what I can expect from CNN, I'll go elsewhere for my news.

I'm okay with mistakes. This was a stupid mistake but it wasn't a stupid statement. It was a mistake. Unfortunately everywhere you go for your news or anything else for that matter you will eventually encounter stupid mistakes. That's because humans make mistakes. You can feel free to snobbishly abandon and boycott every news service who misquotes a politician, every sandwich shop that forgets you said no mustard, and every friend or family member who arrives at an appointment late. Though, I think eventually that you'll discover humans make mistakes. And that's okay.

 

[Arctish]

Clearly you did ignore it as you didn't answer my question.

You asked me if I was confused by this:"If I told you "Mrs. Robertson thought this was a bad idea. He thought differently." I said no.

If I played a sound clip of Pat Nixon talking and then said "That was Pat Nixon in 1969, shortly before she signed the Tax Reform Act into law", would you think I knew what the hell I was talking about?

But if you had played a sound clip of Mrs. Robertson speaking, and you said "that was Mrs. Robertson" I would not assume you meant Mr. Robertson even if you called her the person wearing the pants in that family.

And you clearly didn't answer my question again just now.

What question was that?

I stand by my statement. A noun does not need to have been already referenced for a pronoun to refer to it.

I maintain my claim that pronouns do not have to refer to a noun that has already been mentioned. I maintain my original claim. If the newscaster had said, "That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when he signed the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act into law," this clip would never had made it as a You-tube video.

Also, this was a live broadcast on a 24 hour news network. Mistakes happen. This sort of thing doesn't go through a committee before getting broadcast. And it frankly to me wasn't worth blowing their 7 second censorship delay on something so trivial. Especially since she didn't say anything censor-worthy.

So you're okay with the stupid? That's fine. To each his own.

I'm not so okay with it. I expect better from my news outlets, and if this is what I can expect from CNN, I'll go elsewhere for my news.

I'm okay with mistakes. This was a stupid mistake but it wasn't a stupid statement. It was a mistake. Unfortunately everywhere you go for your news or anything else for that matter you will eventually encounter stupid mistakes. That's because humans make mistakes. You can feel free to snobbishly abandon and boycott every news service who misquotes a politician, every sandwich shop that forgets you said no mustard, and every friend or family member who arrives at an appointment late. Though, I think eventually that you'll discover humans make mistakes. And that's okay.

I don't "snobbishly abandon and boycott every news service who misquotes a politician" but I do avoid the ones with idiots running the show. I don't watch Fox for that very reason, and if this is what CNN is turning into I won't be watching much of it, either.

I grew up watching Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, John Chancellor and other professional newscasters who would never EVER have made that mistake. Heck, the kids in my 8th grade class wouldn't have made that mistake. But a CNN newscaster brainlessly reads a teleprompter and reports that the First Lady signed a bill into law, and you just brush it off like it's nothing. Maybe it's a generational thing but I'm surprised you don't expect better from an outfit like CNN.

 

[zorq]

You asked me if I was confused by this:"If I told you "Mrs. Robertson thought this was a bad idea. He thought differently." I said no.

If I played a sound clip of Pat Nixon talking and then said "That was Pat Nixon in 1969, shortly before she signed the Tax Reform Act into law", would you think I knew what the hell I was talking about?

I would see how ridiculous that statement was and presume that you had made a mistake and not that you were stupid. Boneyard Bill seems entirely convinced that this newscaster and at least a sizable portion of the organization she works for (and also all other mainstream media apparently) is stupid and don't actually know that the First Lady can't sign bills into law. I don't think that is reasonable conclusion given the clip we have seen.

But if you had played a sound clip of Mrs. Robertson speaking, and you said "that was Mrs. Robertson" I would not assume you meant Mr. Robertson even if you called her the person wearing the pants in that family.

And you clearly didn't answer my question again just now.

What question was that?

I'm sorry. I took your response, "Not at all," as a reference to my statement about ignoring the second half of my post and not a response to the question. I apologize.

I stand by my statement. A noun does not need to have been already referenced for a pronoun to refer to it.

I maintain my claim that pronouns do not have to refer to a noun that has already been mentioned. I maintain my original claim. If the newscaster had said, "That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when he signed the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act into law," this clip would never had made it as a You-tube video.

Also, this was a live broadcast on a 24 hour news network. Mistakes happen. This sort of thing doesn't go through a committee before getting broadcast. And it frankly to me wasn't worth blowing their 7 second censorship delay on something so trivial. Especially since she didn't say anything censor-worthy.

So you're okay with the stupid? That's fine. To each his own.

I'm not so okay with it. I expect better from my news outlets, and if this is what I can expect from CNN, I'll go elsewhere for my news.

I'm okay with mistakes. This was a stupid mistake but it wasn't a stupid statement. It was a mistake. Unfortunately everywhere you go for your news or anything else for that matter you will eventually encounter stupid mistakes. That's because humans make mistakes. You can feel free to snobbishly abandon and boycott every news service who misquotes a politician, every sandwich shop that forgets you said no mustard, and every friend or family member who arrives at an appointment late. Though, I think eventually that you'll discover humans make mistakes. And that's okay.

I don't "snobbishly abandon and boycott every news service who misquotes a politician" but I do avoid the ones with idiots running the show. I don't watch Fox for that very reason, and if this is what CNN is turning into I won't be watching much of it, either.

I grew up watching Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, John Chancellor and other professional newscasters who would never EVER have made that mistake. Heck, the kids in my 8th grade class wouldn't have made that mistake. But a CNN newscaster brainlessly reads a teleprompter and reports that the First Lady signed a bill into law, and you just brush it off like it's nothing. Maybe it's a generational thing but I'm surprised you don't expect better from an outfit like CNN.

Well, I bursh it off like it was a mistake, not like it was nothing. Okay, you have higher standards than me. I still feel that you should cut these newscasters some slack. But I can understand your decision not to do so.

Walter Cronkite had the luxury to review the scripts and check for mistakes an hour before broadcast. 24 hour news networks today don't always have that luxury. Also take into consideration that these 24 hour news networks surpassed the total airtime of Walter Cronkite's entire journalism career after their first year on the air. Factor in the fact that every foible and blunder is available for anyone to preserve, share, and ridicule instantly over the internet for the world to see, and you have a recipe for generating and highlighting mistakes. Even mistakes that might have been explained away and brushed aside back in the days of Cronkite with an excuse of "technical problems."

 

[ksen]

My eyes have been opened. My wife made a grammatical error last night so I think it's time I divorced the bitch. I mean who should have to put up with such stupidity?

eta: Also newscasters should live by the credo "WWRBD?" (What Would Ron Burgundy Do?)

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Let's look at our alternative non-main stream media and see 100% accurate and factual sories:
http://www.examiner.com/
http://english.pravda.ru/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/sideboob/
http://www.drudgereport.com/

 

[Arctish]

My eyes have been opened. My wife made a grammatical error last night so I think it's time I divorced the bitch. I mean who should have to put up with such stupidity?

She wasn't still talking about Laura Bush signing the Secure Fences Act of 2006 into law, was she? Damn, that's annoying.

eta: Also newscasters should live by the credo "WWRBD?" (What Would Ron Burgundy Do?)

Well, at least we'd know what to expect.

 

[dismal]

Seriously. Change the "she" into a "he" and this wouldn't have been a you tube video.

You're joking?

Stupid is stupid, and that was flat out stupid. To pull out the "sexism card" here is laughable.

Indeed if a woman reporter can't be called out for saying stupid things then a very pernicious form of sexism is at work.

 

[ksen]

That wasn't his point.

 

[dismal]

That wasn't his point.

I confess I'm not as skilled at torturing events into sexist grievances as some...

What is it about gender that makes this worthy of a youtube video, as opposed to it simply being a youtube worthy a case of someone saying something stupid?

 

[ksen]

That wasn't his point.

I confess I'm not as skilled at torturing events into sexist grievances as some...

What is it about gender that makes this worthy of a youtube video, as opposed to it simply being a youtube worthy a case of someone saying something stupid?

He wasn't talking about the gender of the newscaster. He was talking about how pronouns are used to identify people in the story.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So based on all your failed predictions, BB, where does that put you for Web Board authoritative opinion? I mean, if we are going to be all judging of people and their qualifications.

 

[dismal]

That wasn't his point.

I confess I'm not as skilled at torturing events into sexist grievances as some...

What is it about gender that makes this worthy of a youtube video, as opposed to it simply being a youtube worthy a case of someone saying something stupid?

He wasn't talking about the gender of the newscaster. He was talking about how pronouns are used to identify people in the story.

Huh?

That's a bizarre interpretation.

The literal quote in the context of having just played a clip of Michelle Obama speechifying and amidst several other comment specifically about Michelle Obama's initiative: "That was Mrs. Obama back in 2010 when she signed the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act into law".

 

[KeepTalking]

My take away from this is, since Ron Paul is not our President, I should NEVER read anything boneyard bill posts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My take away from this is, since Ron Paul is not our President, I should NEVER read anything boneyard bill posts.

That should read, ...since Ron Paul is not our President, did not win a single primary ever, nor was he a "king maker"...

 

[ksen]

B-b-b-b-but Ron Paul was in that picture with Reagan once!!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

B-b-b-b-but Ron Paul was in that picture with Reagan once!!

Was Reagan aware of this? It seems that ... OK, never mind. I just realized that I started a post by asking if Reagan had been aware of something that was going on around him. I'll just stop right there and not bother continuing.

 

[Archimedes]

My eyes have been opened. My wife made a grammatical error last night so I think it's time I divorced the bitch. I mean who should have to put up with such stupidity?

eta: Also newscasters should live by the credo "WWRBD?" (What Would Ron Burgundy Do?)

Like this?

Ron Burgundy will read anything that is put on the teleprompter. And what I say anything, I mean an-y-thing!

Go fuck yourself San Diego!

 

[ksen]

Yes, like that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That said, CNN is nothing more than tabloid news and isn't a particularly good source for in-depth news coverage. That has been a known quantity for a while. CNN has raised the bar on crap reporting, including doing the Sat reporting of two reporters (well, one reporter and Nancy Grace) at the same location, but pretending they weren't.