CNN Drops Anchor Connie Chung (1 Viewer)

[RickGr]

I tend toi stick with MSNBC because I just think NBC news has a bit more class and is not as tabloid as FOX.
Just me, your thoughts and mileage may vary.

I gave up on CNN many moons ago.

 

[Tommy Ceez]

I think Peter Arnett just blew the roof off of that MSNBC class theory.

WOW!

No further comment.

 

[Scooter]

Tommy:

Yeah!

Thing is he is not MSNBC proper..but is attached to National Geographic...and that is a sister service to CNBC which is a sister to MSNBC.

The most troubling thing about all this is is GE/NBC's response. Without treading into forbidden waters here...doing the best I can..he just shattered any credibility he may have gained back with what he did yesterday.

 

[elMalloc]

Drop aaron brown, the guy always has a smirk on his face. I can't see how anyone can stand to watch him.

-ELmO

 

[Scooter]

TOODLES! arnett got fired ...happens!

 

[Scott Kimball]

I tend toi stick with MSNBC because I just think NBC news has a bit more class and is not as tabloid as FOX.

I stopped watching MSNBC a few months ago. In the last period of "Orange Alert" before the war, MSNBC had an Orange Alert graphic on the screen pretty much 24/7, for weeks. If that isn't tabloid, I don't know what is. We know we're at "Orange Alert"... One day of that would have been more than sufficient. For some reason, that completely "turned me off."

Funny thing is, of the Big Three Networks, I like NBC News the best, and I continue to watch it. MSNBC is just too hyped.

-Scott

 

[LarryDavenport]

I always used to like Aaron Brown when he was the co-anchor of KING 5's news (the Seattle NBC affiliate). I was glad to see a Seattle boy make good. But I have to admit that I gaet kind of bored watching him on CNN. I think Anderson Cooper has a bit more spark personality wise.

 

[GaryEA]

I'm going on record and say that I thoroughly enjoy Aaron Brown and that NewsNight became a fixture in my nightly habit very quickly.

I find him to be no-nonsense, which is downright refreshing. He doesn't over-dramatize the news or have a pandering tone. He doesn't try to be a flashy personality, and delivers the news in a straight-forward manner that can be either be very enjoyable or thoughtful, depending on the topic. I hope he stays put for a long time.

Anderson Cooper is my second favorite of the crew, for many of the same reasons. I like his approach and his humor; like when he opened a segment about reality programs. While rattling off a list of then-popular or notable shows, his response to "The Mole" was a sly "Been there, done that".

-g

 

[Scott Kimball]

Aaron Brown does too much "emoting" for a news anchor. (Takes glasses off and shakes head or wipes brow... grimaces... uses expressive language that imparts his thoughts on the story). This is not an anchor's job... he's not doing editorials. His persona delivers too much color to the news... I'd rather have my news "raw". I can interpret it they way I want to.

I wouldn't have a problem with him doing that sort of thing in an editorial program, but keep it out of the headline news services.

 

[DanielN]

Fox News is the only channel now that leans toward the conservative side, of course they will have the highest ratings.

Look at our buddy Rush Limbaugh, do you think he would get the same ratings if he were a liberal.

Conservative shows get ratings, liberal shows dont...plain simple.

 

[John_VI]

While I have been (and will continue to be) watching Fox for the duration of the war, I'm getting a bit tired of Shepard Smith. God, is he clueless or what!! He is an unabashed conservative, which I don't have a problem with, but he is also very much a cheerleader, which I DO have a problem with. But my biggest gripe is that he seems to be very underinformed about the majority of the stories he is reporting on. If he has to veer from his script, he resorts to cheerleading or "leading" the person he's speaking to (or interviewing). Very lame, IMHO.

I love Brit Hume. Solid guy, good anchor, lots of varied experience.

I've deplored Dan Rather for years, but the final nail was driven in his coffin (for me, anyway) when he reported a couple of nights ago that civilians streaming out of Basra were stopping to share their meager supplies of food with hungry Marines. PLEEEEEASE!!!!!

And finally, I have a real problem with all of these armchair generals (and colonels, and majors, and CSMs, and....) who "analyze" the progress of the war. First, they are retired, meaning they no longer have unfiltered access to current intelligence material. Second, they are retired, meaning that they no longer have complete access to training doctrine. Third, they are retired, meaning that they no longer have access to war plans, strategy briefings, logistics capabilities, planned troop movements, psy-ops, etc... What they DO have are "sources" in the Pentagon, and in the past few days, we've seen that some of their "sources" have a decidedly anti-war (or perhaps more correctly, anti-war-plan) agenda. So the "information" from these Pentagon "sources" contains a tremendous amount of spin. Two of the worst offenders are GEN McCaffrey and GEN Clark. Clark is acting out of pure ego (I served with him, and I know of what I speak) and quite possibly some future political ambition. I think Clark could be very aptly compared to LTG George McClelland during the Civil War. Great planner, very good politician, but a poor leader who blamed his failures on his superiors (including the President). McCaffrey, on the other hand, baffles me. He is widely regarded (in the Army community) as a very good leader and a very "reasoned" communicator, but his recent statements against the President, the SecDef, the ChJCOS and the war plan also smack of grandstanding in front of the camera.

 

[Scooter]

Well..I can see this one coming to an end.

ibtl

 

[John_VI]

Oh, and Connie Chung? She's been a joke (to the media) and a liability (to any network who employs her) since her epic failure in the coverage of the OKC bombing. Granted, she got dropped into one of the biggest stories of the century in America, but she just totally flopped. She was completely out of her depth and it killed any chance she might have to ever again be considered a serious reporter.

 

[John_VI]

Hope you're not referring to my posts, Scooter. Nothing political there.

 

[LarryDavenport]

So called "Liberals" don't get their news from TV anyway.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

I've deplored Dan Rather for years, but the final nail was driven in his coffin (for me, anyway) when he reported a couple of nights ago that civilians streaming out of Basra were stopping to share their meager supplies of food with hungry Marines. PLEEEEEASE!!!!!

I'd say that's entirely possible. MULTIPLE channels were reporting supply line problems, and they had several soldiers on saying that water and MREs were starting to run low

 

[Malcolm R]

starting to run low

Well there's a huge difference between "starting to run low" and having to beg for scraps from Iraqi civilians.

I'm sure there are some spotty problems here and there, but I don't believe any soldiers are going hungry or without sufficient water. Most of the interviews I've seen with the troops say their supplies well-stocked and just fine.

I'd like to see anyone move a group of 30,000 people 200+ miles in 3 days and not have some logistical problems with supplies, even without people trying to kill you. It's like moving an entire small city, residents and infrastructure, all at once.

 

[John_VI]

Jeff - I'm not really doubting that Iraqi civilians were giving some food to Marines. I'm sure that they were. But I tend to believe that it was out of thanks for saving their lives, not because the Marines were out of food. Remember the pictures from when America liberated Paris in 1945? The French were coming out of the woodwork to give the Americans food, wine, kisses, etc... No, it's the way that Rather CHOSE to report it - or that he reported it at all! - that is so telling about his complete lack of objectivity.

I don't watch the news to be preached to about America's motives, the effectiveness of the war plan, the commitment of the leaders, or what France thinks about it all. I watch the news for the facts, and sadly, facts are in short supply on just about every outlet.

 

[Keith Mickunas]

I'm glad to see Connie Chung gone, I can't believe anyone would take her seriously. Ever since the thing with Newt's mom she's shown that she has integrity. Unfortunately that leave Aaron Brown. I just can't stand that guy. Its clear he can't talk coherently without a script. He's not cut out for this kind of reporting.

My biggest problem with this coverage is that there's just not enough news for them to cover. I've repeatedly heard for close to the past 24 hours that two Iragi divisions have been taken out, and it keeps making the headlines. You'd think that two divisions had been taken out every hour the way its been reported. Also, I keep seeing stories about the embedded reporters. Not by the reporters, but about them and the affect they have on the news. That gets old after a while. I think by now we're all aware that there are embedded reporters, that this is the first time they've been so widely dispersed like this, and that it represents a new way for us to get the news. But I'm sure I'll see more stories about this tonight.

 

[Jason Adams]

Well, what happened with Connie and her OKC city coverage. My mom was upset when I told her Connie was cancelled. She watched that show every night.