HLN trolled

[mr friendly guy]

1. Booking the wrong guy with a similar name

2. The host was talking about Edward Snowden. The Comedian was talking about Edward Scissorhands. Now I have never seen the movie before, but even I knew he was talking about the fictional character. Just in case she still didn't get it with references like he was born with scissors for hands, he mentions Edward Scissorhands.

Its hilarious how the host just kept on reading the questions.

It reminds me of the time several news outlets believed Paul Krugman spent his way into bankruptcy in a parody of Keynesian economics.

Back in the 90s this was the stuff of sitcoms, but apparently life has now imitated art. As Eric Cartman would say, I broke my funny bone.

[Flagg]

I posted this in testing and I think it fell into the boards swollen anus. Now that I see it posted in N&P (the boards' infected colon ), I see I was right!

The best part is how the host is clearly just "Waiting for her turn to talk" (as Tyler Durden would say), seemingly without actually listening to what the guest was saying. Yes, America, this is the state of your 24/7 national "news" networks. But at least we know where snow comes from, now.

[Darmalus]

Since most news announcers aren't reporters (just talking heads) I would presume they don't give a flying shit about what they are talking about and are on autopilot most of the time. I've had jobs like that.

Agree with the worthlessness of 24/7 news.

[Simon_Jester]

Basically, it's utterly pointless to even have a program that alleges to present facts about the world, where the host (the one person who's on the show all the time) has no commitment to things such as facts, logic, and information.

[Patroklos]

She is just an actress playing a part. That doesn't mean those behind the scenes should not car, but the idea that the host themselves is somehow responsible for contest is sort of antiquated. TV programming like everything else is mass produced.

[mr friendly guy]

Basically, it's utterly pointless to even have a program that alleges to present facts about the world, where the host (the one person who's on the show all the time) has no commitment to things such as facts, logic, and information.

Indeed.

I have no problem with people saying that RT or Xinhua are mouthpieces for the Kremlin and Beijing respectively, and thus you have to be careful with what they say.

I however wish people would apply the same standards to our (Western) media. That is you have to be careful with what they say, not because they are the government's mouthpiece, but because of their competence or lack of it as you can see here. Obviously competence level varies between organisations but I find that even outlets which have a good reputation, oh lets say BBC are hell dodgy when they report on topics which I just happen to be well versed in. This of course makes you wonder how well their reports are in things I don't know much about. Sure it could be they are accurate for the most part except these topics I just happen to be knowledgeable in, but I suspect I am not that lucky.

The thing which bugs me, is that because media is "free media" we tend to assume it will be more truthful than government mouthpieces. Or maybe being "free" ie free from government influence is more important to some people than logic and truth.

I am pretty sure if someone trolled RT's Alyona show or Peter Lavell on Crosstalk, they would be pretty clued in and realise what was going on like .. the first time he mentioned "having scissors for hands," which I guess makes a Kremlin mouthpiece somewhat better than this CNN affiliated station.

[Simon_Jester]

She is just an actress playing a part. That doesn't mean those behind the scenes should not car, but the idea that the host themselves is somehow responsible for contest is sort of antiquated. TV programming like everything else is mass produced.

I'm not blaming the actress/host for the pointlessness. I'm saying that if the producers of the show cannot even convincingly mimic a product in which their host cares, then the product is useless.

It's like, I buy an action movie and I expect many of the characters to be a bunch of badasses. If the characters are weaksauce and timid and do not fight, and if this is contrary to what the producers of the movie advertised, I did not get my money's worth. It doesn't matter that this one time somebody hired vin Diesel to play a shy, sensitive, easily frightened milquetoast. I'm not saying it's vin Diesel's fault. I'm saying that "wow, vin Diesel's character is a wimp, and so's everyone else in a movie, where I was promised action."

Likwise, if I am promised news, I expect that the stage personas who get up to deliver news will be people who care. Ideally they should be journalists (people who actually do care about news). But at the bare minimum they should be actors who can convincingly pretend to care about news.

[Flagg]

She's not an actress because she's being presented as a journalist doing an interview. If she were reading news stories then a point could be made, but she was supposedly doing a serious interview on a serious subject and it's clear that she was just simply asking a list of prepared questions and then waiting for the person being interviewed to answer them in the time allotted to him and then asking the next question on the list with no follow-ups or corrections of fact should the interviewee be making untrue statements. I think this shit is actually fouler than FOXNEWS acting as the propaganda arm of the Republican party, and far more damaging because there is no one there to call bullshit on anything, so it gives the very false impression that literally anything can be challenged and made open for serious debate which is already a problem as anyone who's tried to argue with people totally ignorant of the scientific method on issues such as vaccination can attest. And it seems to me that it's increasingly prevalent with there seeming to be at least 2 sets of "facts" for every major public health and environmental issue facing us today.

[Simon_Jester]

She's not an actress because she's being presented as a journalist doing an interview.

Yeah. It's like... Either she's a journalist, or she isn't.

If she is, she should act like a journalist, in which case being committed to the facts is important, and being able to actually interview the people you're talking to is also important. If she fails to do that, and she's a journalist, then I'm not getting my money's worth.

If she isn't a journalist, then she's an entertainment figure being paid to convincingly impersonate a journalist... in which case I'm still not getting my money's worth because she's doing a lousy job. She doesn't even do what I imagine having a journalist interview this person would look like.

I mean, Judge Judy convincingly impersonates a real judge, and it is or can be hilarious, and thus her show is worth occasionally watching in my eyes. R. Lee Ermey convincingly impersonates a real drill sergeant, and it is hilarious, so he's fun to watch. But if a TV talking head tries to impersonate a journalist and fails, it's just pathetic.

Now, if you want an entertainment figure who impersonates a journalist, look at what Stephen Colbert used to get up to.

[Lord Revan]

She's not an actress because she's being presented as a journalist doing an interview.

Yeah. It's like... Either she's a journalist, or she isn't.

If she is, she should act like a journalist, in which case being committed to the facts is important, and being able to actually interview the people you're talking to is also important. If she fails to do that, and she's a journalist, then I'm not getting my money's worth.

If she isn't a journalist, then she's an entertainment figure being paid to convincingly impersonate a journalist... in which case I'm still not getting my money's worth because she's doing a lousy job. She doesn't even do what I imagine having a journalist interview this person would look like.

I mean, Judge Judy convincingly impersonates a real judge, and it is or can be hilarious, and thus her show is worth occasionally watching in my eyes. R. Lee Ermey convincingly impersonates a real drill sergeant, and it is hilarious, so he's fun to watch. But if a TV talking head tries to impersonate a journalist and fails, it's just pathetic.

Now, if you want an entertainment figure who impersonates a journalist, look at what Stephen Colbert used to get up to.

it's possible she's not allowed to go "off-script" in which case it's the fault of the producers and directors and not the host, though it comes down to the same thing the program failed to give us a convincing repesentation of a journalist.