Logo
Cover

CNN has been annoying for 40 years

The US private broadcaster CNN went on the Air 40 years ago. On June 1, 1980, founder Ted Turner announced: “we can hopefully bring the people of this country and the world together in brotherhood, kindness, friendship and peace.“In addition to the flags of the USA and the state of Georgia, the UN flag was also raised: nothing could be more misleading than Turner’s warm words and the false flag symbolism of international understanding. Because the broadcaster did not stand up for this understanding and it did not work in this sense: CNN’s misdeeds begin at the latest with the first Iraq War of 1991. and they extend to the present, for example with the topics of US interventions, Julian Assange, Venezuela or US confrontation with Russia-examples of this will follow later in the Text.

The company, based in Atlanta in the US state of Georgia since 1996, is a subsidiary of the media group, Warner media. The station’s president is Jeff Zucker. CNN is global: There are other US offices, such as in Washington D.C., New York and Los Angeles. London is home to the largest CNN office outside the United States, responsible for Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Other offices are located in Berlin, Paris, Moscow, Rome, Madrid, Istanbul, Jerusalem, Beirut, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Baghdad, Cairo, Lagos and Johannesburg. The central institution for the Asian region is located in Hong Kong, other Studios are located in Beijing, Mumbai, Tokyo and Islamabad.

“Full-time war reporting” to cloud the facts

CNN first attracted great attention with its extensive coverage of the 1986 “Challenger” disaster. from the first Iraq war in 1991, the station switched to full-time war coverage. In a recent article, the DPA news agency revels in enthusiastic memories of “the historical words” by CNN reporter Bernhard Shaw:

“It’s the middle of the night in Iraq when the young News channel CNN manages to create one of the biggest journalistic sensations in history. ‘The sky over Baghdad is illuminated’ are the historical words of reporter Bernhard Shaw. ‘We see bright flashes everywhere in the sky.‘ It is the night 17. January 1991. The CNN journalists to Shaw are the eyes and ears of the world, as the Second Gulf war began. No other Western media can immediately report this war outbreak live from Iraq.”

The fact that the relevant information about the background and motives of the illegal war of aggression of the USA against Iraq is disappearing behind the endless repetition of images of distant bombings is still not adequately criticized by most German media. In fact, the DPA contribution to the anniversary does not contain a single critical word about the distracting and indirectly militarizing effect of CNN. The intoxicating (and thus distracting) effect of a sham testimony by CNN reporters, on the other hand, is described in the magazine “Timeline":

“As a result, the Americans experienced much of the war – a two – phase coalition offensive against Iraq-through video footage from cameras attached to U.S. bombers, and through long - distance footage of the psychedelic tracks left by the dueling Scud and Patriot missiles racing through the ink-green night sky.

( … ) A light show behind the crouched heads of Foreign Correspondents, a bombardment without casualties. The news images took on surreal tones in this incoherent hyper-reality, monotony mixed with the urgency of a distant death.”

Gulf War: CNN as conductor of a media light show

The article CNN describes as central conductors of this media “light show”. The station was “coincidentally” the only station broadcasting from Iraq when the bombing began on 17 January 1991. CNN’s 24-hour coverage has “transformed the traditional morning news cycle into the continuous, ongoing flow of information we know today.” CNN had thus delivered the” most indelible images from the war”. Aggravating is the fact that in 1991 pictures would still have been considered evidence – after all, they have lost this Status in the meantime.

There are probably more questionable US media than CNN. And as with many other German or US-American media there are also at CNN tried individuals and again and again individual good reports. But this does not constitute a real counterweight to the largely one-sided drumming for the Third Gulf War in 2003. this was also criticized internally, for example by the then CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour, as reported by The “Guardian”. Matt Taibbi writes about the second Iraq War, how “the media that sold the Iraq War got away with it.” Accordingly, the “Washington Post” and the “New York Times” were the main editorial drivers of the conflict in the print media. CNN took over this role, according to Taibbi for the TV:

“CNN flooded the airwaves with generals and ex-employees of the Pentagon.”

“CNN effect” : preparation of interventions by continuous sprinkling

A so-called” CNN effect “was also found: the 24-hour sprinkling of emotional images had"brought the suffering closer to the world”. This effect fit in perfectly in the infamous U.S. strategy of “Responsibility to protect” to justify a “humanitarian” Intervention, which brought you the (apparently) undeniable “proof” of “humanitarian disasters” in the respective countries. However, the magazine “Atlantic” openly regrets the wear and tear of this kind of preparatory opinion-making by 24-hour sound reinforcement – for example in Syria this unfortunately did not work properly anymore:

“In the 1990s, a term was created for the role that the live coverage of humanitarian crises by 24-hour news channels played in the US government’s decisions to use military force. During this time, America intervened in conflicts that it might otherwise have ignored, from Iraq and Somalia to Bosnia and Kosovo. ( … ) In recent days, the relentless bombing of the besieged rebel enclave of eastern Ghouta by the Syrian government has shown how subdued the CNN effect in Syria is.”

Through a new aesthetic, treadmills and Logos for subject areas etc, CNN has also indirectly paved the way for the aesthetic concept of “Fox News” (from 1996). Before all the US wars and after 9/11, CNN “failed”, if you want to put it kindly and see no intention. In this “failure”, however, the station is on a par with almost all other major Western media.

Current examples of CNN Propaganda

There are also current examples of biased reporting. CNN recently reported that the Coronavirus had “devastated Moscow.” CNN also provided the preparatory reports for us interference in Venezuela, for example to a supposedly closed bridge to Colombia.

Julian Assange is slandered by CNN bad. CNN claims about:

“Exclusive: security reports reveal how Assange turned the embassy into a command post for election interference. ( … ) Assange met Russians and world-class computer hackers at crucial moments”.

The further role of CNN in connection with” Russian election interference”, with Wikileaks and the Democratic Party of the USA can also be described as at least questionable. Arguably, such untrustworthy behavior led to CNN being the least trustworthy cable news network for American voters in 2017, as at least the “Rasmussen Report” claims.

CNN as “resistance fighter” against Donald Trump

At the same time, however, the station is currently presenting itself as a resistance and last Bastion of “good America” against US President Donald Trump. To a recent appeal by major US media against attacks by Trump, the reflection pages have written:

“The hypocrisy inherent in the project catches the eye: because the action is led by the ‘Boston Globe’, CNN, The ‘New York Times’ or the ‘Washington Post’ – that is, by media that have produced rampant Fake news campaigns such as the ‘Russian election manipulation’, the ‘poison attack in Salisbury’ or the ‘popular uprising in Syria’ in the recent past alone. With the emotional appeals, this first league of opinion makers suddenly demands the truth – eventually the phenomenon came According to her account, ‘Fake News’ only entered the world with Donald Trump.”

On the other hand, the title of the “Resistance fighter” against Donald Trump is not entirely outlandish for CNN: a study by the “Harvard Kennedy School” on media coverage of the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency concluded that 93 percent of all CNN reports conveyed negative content. But is such clear storage appropriate for political discourse? Moreover, “resistance” to Trump does not mean standing up for good policy. Behind the spectre of Trump, for example, the bellicose attitude of many US Democrats is repeatedly hidden.

There is some good news about CNN: the zenith of the station’s influence has clearly passed.