Posted on 11/25/2016 1:39:42 PM PST by Kaslin
One blog on the inanities in CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour's impassioned address at the Committee to Protect Journalists dinner against granting any respect to conservatives in the "news" media product is not enough. In a second look at the transcript, one can see how Amanpour complained that Hillary Clinton was judged by an "exceptionally high bar" and Trump an "exceptionally low bar."
She also insisted, as many at CNN do, that the fact-based journalist never accepts a rebuttal on the "empirical scientific evidence" of global warming.
During an interview on my program this summer, the film-maker and historian Ken Burns asked me what would Edward R. Murrow do?
First, like many people watching where I was overseas, I admit I was shocked by the exceptionally high bar put before one candidate and the exceptionally low bar put before the other candidate.
It appeared much of the media got itself into knots trying to differentiate between balance, objectivity, neutrality, and crucially, truth.
We cannot continue the old paradigm--let's say like over global warming, where 99.9 percent of the empirical scientific evidence is given equal play with the tiny minority of deniers.
I learned long ago, covering the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Bosnia, never to equate victim with aggressor, never to create a false moral or factual equivalence, because then you are an accomplice to the most unspeakable crimes and consequences.
I believe in being truthful, not neutral. And I believe we must stop banalizing the truth.
"Truthful, not neutral" is an Amanpour slogan. It's a wonderful motto for arrogant liberal bias. Liberalism is the "truth," conservatism is "falsehood," and so one should be celebrated, and the other pounded into dust. For example, Amanpour in this address compares the Trump/conservative side of the debate not only to falsehood, but as comparable to pracitioners of "ethnic cleansing and genocide," as well as the tyrants who would crush the "Arab Spring.
setup:
And we have to be prepared to fight especially hard for the truth in a world where the Oxford English Dictionary just announced its word of 2016: post-truth.
We have to accept that we've had our lunch handed to us by the very same social media that we've so slavishly been devoted to.
The winning candidate did a savvy end run around us and used it to go straight to the people. Combined with the most incredible development ever--the tsunami of fake news sites--aka lies--that somehow people could not, would not, recognize, fact check, or disregard.
One of the main writers of these false articles--these lies--says people are getting dumber, just passing fake reports around without fact checking. We need to ask whether technology has finally outpaced our human ability to keep up.
Trump voters are "dumber" voters prone to "hate speech." Does this strike anyone as someone who learned something about her political opponents in this last election? Or does it sound like the usual doubling-down? Conservatives are also pushing a "post-values world," she claimed:
Now, more than ever, we need to commit to real reporting across a real nation, a real world in which journalism and democracy are in mortal peril, including by foreign powers like Russia paying to churn out and place false news, and hacking into democratic systems here and allegedly in upcoming crucial German and French elections too....
We must also fight against a post-values world.
And let me hit back at this elitist backlash we're all bending over backwards to accommodate.
Since when were American values elitist values? They are not left or right values. They are not rich or poor values, not the forgotten-man values....
So yes, like so many around the world, I was shocked--very few ever imagined that so many Americans conducting their sacred duty in the sanctity of the voting booth, with their secret ballot, would be angry enough to ignore the wholesale vulgarity of language, the sexual predatory behavior, the deep misogyny, the bigoted and insulting views.
Like many Clinton-adoring journalists, "Truthful" Amanpour never acknowledges Bill Clinton was credibly accused of sexually predatory behiavior. In the year Clinton was impeached, Amanpour married Clinton State Department spokesman Jamie Rubin, who also worked for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign in 2008.
After Clinton was impeached for lying in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, Amanpour gushed all over Hillary Clinton for her suffering, instead of demanding the truth about how she defended her husband's misogyny: "A lot of the women that I meet from traveling overseas are very impressed by you and admire your dignity. A lot of the people you meet are people who’ve suffered, people you saw today, and who believe that they identify with you, because they have seen you suffer.”
That's "truthful"? It's certainly not neutral. Amanpour claimed that she was a guardian of American values and ripped Laura Ingraham for suggesting otherwise:
If not, I will fight as a journalist--as we all must--to defend and protect the unique value system that makes these United States--and with which it seeks to influence the world.
The conservative radio host who may be the next White House press secretary says mainstream media is hostile to traditional values.
I would say it's just the opposite. And have you read about the "Heil, victory" meeting in Washington, DC this past weekend? Why aren't there more stories about the dangerous rise of the far right here and in Europe? Since when did anti-Semitism stop being a litmus test in this country? We must fights against normalization of the unacceptable.
Amanpour then mentioned the Brexit vote, where she also championed the Left and disparaged the Right.
Whatever she says here, “blah blah blah blah blah...”, whoever listens to her ought to realize they’re listening to the condescending ranting of a British citizen, who resides in London, raised in Iran by her Iranian father. She has no right to criticize our electorate
NOT engaging in non-stop criminal behavior is now a "high bar?"
Trump is being bombarded by "conflict of interest" charges before he even assumes office, while Hillary (Chelsea, her husband, Billy the rapist? Clinton Criminal Foundation??)
Seriously?
And the elected criminals hurling the COI charges are verifiably the most ignorant and intellectually deprived politicians in history?
Those truly low bars will not be challenged for generations!
Christaine, born in London, raised in Tehran. Father a Muslim Iranian. Mother British.
Married to ex-US Assistant Secretary of State James Rubin.(Clinton Admin.)
She’s been a Muslim/Iran sympathizer since I’ve seen her on TV.
Anti-American thru and thru.
Come to think of it, all the photos of her drinking during the campaign have been of her standing in a group, chugalugging. Never seated, drinking like a cultured lady. Now I know why. The bar was too high./S.
And let's see who wins when the cards are laid.
She is, imo, partly to blame for the rise of NEWS personalities --you know, those babbleheads who don camo or brave hurricanes with a steely gaze as they remind us they're LIVE! and then state their names for the umpteenth time, as if THEY, not the event(s) they're covering, are the most important part of any story. Which, in their minds, I suppose they are.
Her view on global warming is what is so distorted
Amanpour is actually being given, and accepting, a 2016 journalism award for lifetime achievement in defending journalistic freedom or some such thing.
It is amazing that this woman would be given an award by any organization for anything.
Journalism must now be equivalent to stupidity practiced on a professional level...
:-(
I absolutely dig the bikini girl doing a handstand on the beach. She makes it look so easy.
Brightens my afternoon & gets my thoughts away from the execrable Amanpour & hideous CNN.
I cannot stand the sound of this arrogant thing, its accent is just unbearable, like finger nails on a chalk board. I’d rather listen to Hitlery’s screeching. I’d rather look at Hitlery.
You mean like not being a criminal is too high a bar?
Laying a bar on the ground would be a high bar for the snake Hillary.
Yet somehow Hillary not only found that bar but she had many, many drinks there!
It’s really weird to listen to a speech so utterly devoid of meaningful content that is delivered so passionately.
I tried to listen to this speech, I really did, but all I heard was ... blah, blah, blah, blah ... the winning candidate did a very savy end run round us and used it [social media] to go straight to the people ... blah, blah, blah, blah ...
Nonetheless, I do think I got the gist of the speech, namely the enemedia were unable to destroy the candidate that they hated even with a 24x7, full-court propaganda campaign, but suddenly discovered that the new digital communications means are more powerful than they are and that they are now terrified because they are completely irrelevant since their monopoly on information has been subverted and that they will never again have the power to control our elections as they have always done in the past.
Another muslim fellow traveler down the ol’ crapper. That’s a shame.
She has to shave her back!
“Truthful, not neutral” is an Amanpour slogan.”
“Fake but accurate.” Dan Rather
“We must be able to filter news.” Katie Tur
And they still don’t seem to understand why we loathe them.
That’s the perfect expression on Trump’s face. He must have been very hungry.
nice to know I helped a brother out
Creepy dykes war on little boys.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.