CNN Host Calls for Crackdown on 'Bloggers'

CNN Host Calls for Crackdown on 'Bloggers'

newsbus ters.org

Should there be a "gatekeeper" regulating internet bloggers? In the aftermath of the Shirley Sherrod incident, that's what CNN promoted on July 23.

Anchors Kyra Phillips and John Roberts discussed the "mixed blessing of the internet," and agreed that there should be a crackdown on anonymous bloggers who disparage others on the internet.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is VERY IMPORTANT news for EVERYONE on ATS IMHO, because right here you see the mainstream media trying to move against bloggers. They have all sorts of reasons to fear and hate ANYONE who undermines their control of information.

Millions are waking up now and the MSM is waking up to the fact that they no longer have the "gatekeeping" function they once took for granted.

Make no mistake -- this is not about Shirley Sherrod. It is an exuse to RESTRICT FREEDOM and the expression of alternative viewpoints.

How long do you think our beloved ATS would last if they start picking off bloggers?

newsbus ters.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

Silencing the voice of the voiceless will result in armed rebellion of the voiceless. That is all that I have to say (and hope for).

See what happens when irresponsible people like Breitbart spew their vile twisted lies in an irresponsible manner? Remember this.

[edit on 7/24/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Its time for bloggers to vehemently speak out loudly and clearly about this corrupt fascism. And also do what they rarely do, write or email their represntatives and tell they'll never be elected again and bullhorns won't be optional for the crowds that will be arranged, but mandatory.

Anchors on CNN have as much a right to freedom of speech as the rest of us do. If they say something like that then they have every right to even if you don't like it or agree.
What you should be watching is congress and new laws trying to be passed, not CNN, if you're really worried about your freedom to blog.

There are libel laws all ready set in place that Shirley Sherrod can use to find any remedy that might be due her because of the Breitbart incident, and any so called "journalist" was presumably taught about these libel laws while studying to be a journalist. Libel is the regulation that all ready exists. No other form of regulation is necessary. The agenda of the main stream media has been pretty clear for some time now, and it isn't about serving the public, or even entertaining the public, and has been, for too long, about indoctrination into an insidious society not at all conducive to freedom.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Thing is, I don't believe Breitbart qualifies as a journalist, and neither do most of the talking heads at the other media outlets who libeled and slandered her.

I would think that in any case, she has a great lawsuit on her hands. Just hope she goes through with it.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I think too much respect has been given to the role of "journalist". Freedom of the press does not mean that someone has to be credentialed in order to take advantage of that freedom. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison were not credentialed journalists when they wrote the pamphlets that eventually became known as The Federalist Papers, and much like many users of the internet today, they wrote under assumed names, with the convenience of anonymity.

I don't know enough about the Breitbart/Sherrod story, but if she has been libeled, she should certainly seek remedy.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Well, I tend to agree that some of these people do pose as journalists...intentionally. So what you say makes some sense.

We sort of discussed this in another thread how subtle the switchover from journalism to punditry was. But they did get called on it and now they pay lip service and say their opinion-oriented. Trouble is, some people still believe it's news.

Sherrod probably has a solid case for libel, slander, and defamation of character, but I'm no attorney, so I don't know for sure. She was not a public figure when all this occurred, though she sure is now.

I hope she's brave and makes an example of these pundits to get us some relief and reform. But I also hope it doesn't go overboard to where people start saying things like this CNN host did. Or worse.

As to this being a battle between versus bloggers and televised media? Ridiculous. The televised people are hardly better. In many cases they read straight from the internet.

What this host is saying is what I've been saying...just check your damn facts before you flap your jaw. Take responsibility for your actions and take the consequences too.

People need to stop letting them get away with it. And the more popular a blogger is, the bigger the potential for the damage, and the higher the consequences must be.

Freedom of defamation

[edit on 7/24/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Would it not be more sensible and rewarding just to ban CNN and their overpaid robots?

2nd line.

i wrote in another thread that this is EXACTLY what this whole thing is...its being used to crack down on bloggers...

Do you not see this as CNN reporters playing mouthpiece for those that own and run the media? Would this not be akin to puppet and master?

I think it is foreboding of what is to come in the short term.

Starting to put the pieces together...

Patriot Act starts the invasion of privacy, giving government too much authority to spy on anyone they choose without cause or petition;
Stifling of file sharing based on alledged copywrite infringement, giving companies and the government authority to take over your information and restrict your ability to view and share;
Big Brother clone servers gathering information and data on everything that is sent across your service providers network, so that every email and post and website and text and conversation that you have is cataloged;
Introduce Internet Kill Switch authority, that allows for the immediate closure of any site, host or link based solely on the discretion of a government agency;
New form of ambulance chaser emerges, as the LVRJ cracks down on people who would reference their material on another site;

Now, they are calling for more people who report news on the modern day media outlet to "stop it, just stop it" because it takes away from their ability to stupify the public and keep them 'unawarez' and takes away from their viewership.

Its just the next phase of the greater plan to restrict the net to a place where you dull your senses on video games and pornography and for all that is good in this world, please "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Your call for fact checking and the insidious way in which Kyra Phillips called for legal action are two entirely different things. Here is a snippet from the article the O.P. linked, quoting Phillips:

Phillips wanted to go even further, asking if "there's going to come a point where something's going to have to be done legally" about anonymous bloggers. Read more: newsbusters.org...

Andrew Breitbart is not an anonymous blogger. Sherrod has a real identifiable person in Breitbart, as well as other "journalists" who ran with this story in order to seek remedy. Phillips has used the Breitbart/Sherrod incident to make the leap to attack anonymous bloggers. While anonymity should not in anyway be an immunity from liability of libel charges, there is certainly an insidiousness to Phillips implications, and to be sure, Phillips stopped just short of screaming "there should be a law", but also to be sure, at no point did she discuss the matter of libel. She did, at the very end of that segment, concede that Sherrod had a case for defamation, which was barely heard as it was uttered underneath the yammering of Roberts. However, that segment was not about Sherrod's strong case for defamation, it was an attack on anonymous bloggers.

No one needs the expertise of a lawyer in order to know if they have been libeled. Either a person has been libeled or they haven't. We turn to attorneys for competent assistance of counsel, and that should be it. It is not up to attorneys to decide what is libel and what is not, that is up to a jury.

I agree with you that we should all be more diligent about our fact checking. Ironically, you and I are involved in another thread regarding the nature of facts. We should all hold each other to a higher standard when it comes to blogging, but Phillips hardly achieved that higher standard with her ranting, and own willing ambiguity in regards to the facts. She seems to think her opinion matters more than the facts. Look at how Phillips responded when Roberts said:

"Imagine what would have happened if we hadn't taken a look at what happened with Shirley Sherrod and plumbed the depths further and found out that what had been posted on the internet was not in fact reflective of what she said." Read more: newsbusters.org...

And following that with a quote from that other talking head Andrew Keen who, in plugging his book; The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture, (to which Phillips actually added "our economy, and our values", Phillips responds with:

But Phillips replied that the mainstream media "can't always do that."

The next paragraph of that articles continues with:

"There's going to have be a point in time where these people have to be held accountable," Phillips said. "How about all these bloggers that blog anonymously? They say rotten things about people and they're actually given credibility, which is crazy. They're a bunch of cowards, they're just people seeking attention." Read more: newsbusters.org...

(Ring Ring, Ring Ring) Hello? Hello Kettle? This is Pot, you're black! (Click)

While Phillips may not be anonymous, she is no doubt an attention seeker. Where Phillips hopes to take to task "these bloggers that blog anonymously", for saying rotten things about people, she goes on to lump all anonymous bloggers in the same category, of whom she calls cowards. Yeah, there's some real integrity for you. Where's the fact checking in that? What about all the anonymous bloggers who don't say rotten things about people and instead just work at spreading a message of love, or peace? Are they cowards too? Apparently, Phillips doesn't care, and would rather just lump all anonymous bloggers into the same group, and they're all mean spirited people who say rotten things about people, and are cowards.

Going back to Roberts addendum of Keen's subtitle, asserting that the internet was killing our economy and values, this is quite revealing, because the internet has clearly opened up many new avenues in terms of economy, but what economy is getting killed by the internet is the market share of the media. So, when Roberts says; "our economy", he is not including you and I, but is speaking of a very specific club. Further, where he Roberts also hopes to link the internet to the killing of our values, it is telling that later he likens it to a giant bathroom wall where anyone can anonymously write something bad about another person.

People have been writing on the walls of public bathrooms for far longer than there has been an internet, so this mean spirited posting anonymously on the internet is not a killing of our values, but more a reflection of them, or at the very least, a reflection of those values of that anonymous poster. Even further, the problem of mean spirited remarks being used to damage a persons reputation are as old as the republic is, and in an earlier post I made mention of Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton was fatally wounded in a duel between he and Aaron Burr that was spurred on by the journalistic defamation of Burr made by Hamilton. That defamation pretty much ended Burr's political career. More recently, there was the "trial by media" of Richard Jewell that had nothing at all to do with anonymous bloggers. The main stream media has been playing the same "gotcha" game that many anonymous bloggers do, and they were the ones who set the bar for this crap.

It is the spirit of the times Lucidity, but keep fighting the good fight, and keep calling for a higher standard, and I will stand by you and do my best to attain that standard myself.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

MAybe the head line should read:

"Monoculture at CNN declares diversity in media a dangerous idea"

Eh - the thing about it is what is good for the goose is good for the gander and they must keep that mind.

Each side (left and right) is prone to say bad things (that are not always true) about the other. Both bloggers and MSM are guilty of this.

So, were such a thing to be applied it would have to be applied across the board regardless of if the subject of the falsehood was on the left or the right.

In other words - a lie against Obama or someone on the left would have to be dealt with as harshly as a lie against Palin or someone else on the right (and vice versa)

That would be a bitter, bitter pill for many both sides to swallow. I honestly believe what many of these type of things strive for is the a crackdown of lies or even "bad press" against their beliefs but they want to continue to have open season with anything goes on the opposite side - and this goes for both the left and the right.

reply to post by silent thunder


I disagree. This isn't about censorship nor threats to audience ratings, but actually it addresses a very important point. How unchecked should a media outlet be when a story is allowed to run with a hidden agenda. The video fooled some here on ATS, but the vast majority questioned its validity in terms of context. This story was intended to incite controversy and it worked. Out of control journalism is as bad as out of control politics. Whatever our opinions of mainstream media, there are editorial checks and balances. Granted they don't work all the time, but what this blog did is a disgrace to journalism as a whole.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
See what happens when irresponsible people like Breitbart spew their vile twisted lies in an irresponsible manner? Remember this.

[edit on 7/24/2010 by ~Lucidity]

What Lie??? He showed the video in it's entirety,in which she exonerated herself. If anything was taken out of context it was done by the current administration. Jump to conclusion much?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I know what fact checking is.

reply to post by daddyroo45

He did no such thing. Methinks you missed the entire incident.