Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ed Driscoll

This is CNN

March 7th, 2013 - 1:16 am

On the CNN Chyron at 11:00 pm Pacific Wednesday night: SEN. PAUL DRONES ON… AND ON… And while CNN deserves credit for having Reason’s Mike Riggs on to present the libertarian side of the debate, the Chyron is likely the only thing the now-proverbial low-information voter will take from Paul’s historic filibuster. Particularly the cable viewer clicking through the channels with his remote, where the Chryon for a news network functions in much the same way as one of Max Headroom’s Blipverts.

Even before former NBC head Jeff Zucker has implemented most of long-term strategy to transform this moribund opinion network, its transformation into MSNBC appears to be near complete.

Click screen capture above to watch.

Update: Welcome readers clicking in from Instapundit, Jim Treacher, and the PJM homepage. And from Ace of Spades, who adds:

Obama always gets the Tone of Seriousness and Heroism in CNN’s reporting; anyone who challenges him gets the Tone of Comedy, of Ridicule, of Triviality.

It doesn’t matter what people do or say. We’re accustomed to watching movies and TV, in which the what a character says or does is only incidental to his Heroism. The main determinant of whether someone’s a hero or villain is simply how the movie treats him tonally.

Only the Designated Hero Wins Applause. AP edits out the standing ovation Paul received at the conclusion of his filibuster.

Even though Paul is making the same objections AP (and Erin Burnett) used to make — and considered themselves quite Heroic for so objecting — he can’t be the Hero because we already know King Barack is the Hero.

So Paul must be the Clown or the Villain. A movie can only have one Hero.

Read the whole thing.

Earlier: What’s Gotten into the Water at CNN?

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Because hatred of everything 'Rand' trumps values. Of my circle of acquaintances/friends, the more Progressive they declare themselves to be, the more in favor of drone strikes. Because Obama, and you're some sort of fascist if you want things like due process, or something.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (9)
All Comments   (9)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I used to have a list of top repub contendors for the future, with Rubeo, Cruz, Paul Ryan, and Rand Paul. After today, Rand Paul has gone to the top of that list.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
cnn whats that? Watched it once or twice many years ago.cucumbers not natural,crackers nuts & nonsense,communicating no news,common nonsense in the night,community nuts now,communist nation now,can nurture nuts,can nuke nationals,
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Step back just a bit. It may be this is the kind of thing that forges a memory. And after all, is not your mental image of a filibuster a faceless politician reading lines from a book or newspaper? "Drone? Oh, I get it."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Because hatred of everything 'Rand' trumps values. Of my circle of acquaintances/friends, the more Progressive they declare themselves to be, the more in favor of drone strikes. Because Obama, and you're some sort of fascist if you want things like due process, or something.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There's no due process in war. Drone strikes are not intended to be a new form of capital punishment.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
But Rands filubuster was only objecting to drone strikes on US territory. Do you seriously beleive that the war on terror requires drone strikes on US territory? Whatever happened to our police, FBI, and army? Drone strikes in some lawless area in Pakistan or Yemen, I can understand, but in US territory???
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
So someone is labelled an enemy combatant who happens to be eating a hotdog on the steps of the MET in Manhattan. A drone flies over...

NYPD probably has ten officers within a block—just arrest him.

Now if someone is actively fighting the US in a warzone, or is in the middle of committing a violent crime, sure, do what's necessary. I don't think most people care if drones are used for reconnaissance or as a weapon platform in an active warzone.

The problem with drones strikes is that some officials are rather vague about what limits are being placed on their use. This filibuster was an attempt to get clarity on the issue. In the absence of any clear rules, what if some new president decides to change the scope of drone attacks?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
David, while I agree with your comment. It's hardly 'news' of our g-men being vague in anything and everything they say/ do.

For the g-men KNOW the low informed voter base is getting larger and larger. Where those pesky, hard to waste thought on.. 'facts' and citizenry '..deserving the intentions of our elected body' is too much.

The g-men know best, right? I mean, + $16,000,000,000,000.. isn't that much debt, right?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Except we're not at war. Remember? Didn't we get told that?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All