CNN Sells Out The American People

It's sad to see the state of CNN today. Look at their headline...Americans demonstrate for, against war. Then read the article. The first part covers the anti-war protest in New York City today, with the obligatory difference pointed out between organizers' and police estimates of the crowd size, which is determined to be 200,000 and 300,000 people. In the first few days of war! This is big, big news, and a further signal that Vietnam, and strategic aggression, is dead as we know it.

Or is it? Remember we've got an equally important pro-war protest going on, right? At least according to the headline. This event, according to the Chicago Tribune "mobilized on the Internet and by conservative radio hosts", surely must have had a huge turnout itself right? With all the publicity, and Internet push. Wrong. CNN fails to even give a headcount for this rally, and the Chicago Tribune coverage tells us why. "By the time their event wrapped up at 2 p.m., though, they appeared to have attracted fewer than half as many people as the anti-war faction's estimated 5,000 protesters Friday evening rally in the plaza."

This is headline news? That a pro-war rally had less than 1/2 the turnout of the anti-war rally in Chicago the night before, and about 1/50th of the rally it shared a headline with? Actually, when you think about it, it is big news, as I've indicated above, just not the way they reported it. I wonder why? This is a historic failure for the so-called "pro-war" camp, and of the media, and shows just how much people who "support" the war are disconnected and not passionate about it, and are just being driven by the war hawks, pollsters, and their media allies.

I challenge Gallup or any other pollster to a new poll. Poll the American people, and ask them which best describes your position...do you vigorously support the war, support the war out of loyalty to party, support the war because we're already in it and that's what you're supposed to do, oppose and support the war because we're already in it and that's what you're supposed to do, oppose the war out of loyalty to party, and vigorously oppose the war. Better yet, ask them if they support or don't support, vigorously or moderately, and then ask them why without giving them the answers. A fill-in. Then, after the fill-in, ask them why again, without giving them the answers.

So for instance let's say you support the war, asked why you say to get Saddam Hussein, asked why you say because he is connected to 911. Something like that. Which makes me wonder if the 911 answer is even an option in the current polls going around that are specifically concerned with support or opposition to the war...

My frustration here with the pollsters is that they're using a known trick of social influence in these polls. Upon being presented the options to answer, by having only a limited number of options people are put into Jeopardy mode, not always answering as they really believe but giving their "best answer", regardless of whether there's a "not sure" option or not.

Alex: "High-tech drones loaded with dangerous and deadly weapons. Alice, your final jeopardy response?" Alice: "What is the United States." Alex: "Umm...I'm sorry Alice, you must select one of the answers on the teleprompter or being fed into your earpiece.." Alice: "Well now Alex, that doesn't sound very American, does it? Hee hee." Alex: "Maybe not Alice, but it is the rules." Alice: "Oh, okay Alex, hee hee hee. I didn't know that. Let's see...who is Saddam Hussein!" Alex: "Yes Alice, you are right, and the winner of the CNN Jeopardy grand prize! A brand-new Hummer! Thank you, and to all a good night."

CNN is a fraud.