CBS and CNN Could Be Making News Together 124
crimeandpunishment writes "More proof of the profound impact cable, the Internet, and other outlets have had on broadcast news organizations. CBS and CNN, who have danced around the idea of a partnership for years, may be ready to move forward. Both news organizations have a lot at stake. Broadcast network news has a gloomy financial outlook, and CNN's ratings need a jump-start."
Re:News (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:News (Score:5, Interesting)
***Maybe CNN could start reporting actual news***
Is there anyone there who knows how to do that? It's a little hard to envision any of the CNN "reporters" pulling a Mika Brzezinski and refusing to read the latest pop-culture garbage.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556022/Paris-Hilton-script-screwed-up-burnt-and-shredded.html [telegraph.co.uk]
Re:Maybe if they just reported the damn news! (Score:1, Interesting)
"CNN/FOX going out of business due to low ratings is actually GOOD for US Democracy."
A democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what's for dinner.
The US is a constitutional republic. The constitutional goes about limiting the powers of government through 17 prohibitive clauses. (Interestingly enough, the general welfare clause which is used often to expand the federal government far beyond its intended power appears in the midst of a prohibitive clause in reference to taxation apportionment, but hey, why wouldn't James Madison backdoor the constitution just for kicks. Even though he explained in letters that an expansionist view of this clause would render the document useless, but hey, he wrote it, no biggie, modern judges know more than the author about its intent)
Also worth noting is the rights enumerated in the bill of rights was perceived by some as unnecessary as the government just wrought would be so limited the 10th would take care of the rest. Thank goodness for the enumerations we got since "life liberty property" and rights reserved is somehow vague.
Without the protection of a constitution we really don't have much, and majoritarian rule will undoubtedly lead to increasing internal strife. One could argue the march towards majoritarian tyranny is part of an overarching strategy bring about a crisis.
I also have an interesting history on Rule 22 / Filibuster in the Senate.
History of the Filibuster (Rule 22) in the Senate.
A long time ago any Senator could prevent any law simply by talking about it. Any senator could stop the move to cloture. This was by design. Its to make the little states have a lot of power in the face of the big ones because representation in the house is apportioned. Its a simple and clever concept to have a working bicameral house. Its designed to stop tyrants.
Then a certain president named Wilson who brought us gems like the Federal Reserve system by sneaking it through in a December 23rd vote where almost none of congress was present. (He signed it despite the sneak attack) Think recess appointment, but treasonous. A mark of a patriot.
Anyways, Wilson gets his way and the Fed has been using the hidden tax of inflation like a weapon against the people ever since.
Wilson also helped to dupe the states into the 17th Amendment, giving the election of Senators from the State legislature (making the State legislatures more or less irrelevant in the face of today's Fedzilla) and giving it to the people - more democracy (translates to bigger Federal government)! Major shift in power there. Less checking and balancing.
Fast forward to 1917. Wilson wants to bring America to war. The Senate uses a filibuster (then, by any member just not moving to cloture) to stop Wilson's war.
Wilson can't take no and wont tolerate the filibuster, so he has the rules changed. Now a move to cloture happens if TWO THIRDS agree to move. WAR BEGINS. Typical of a tyrant, they like that stuff so it distracts from the failing state and failing policies.
More who urinate on the Constitution come over the years it erodes to THREE Fifths.
First it was one senator.
Then 23
Then 35
See the trend?
As the constitutionality of the Fedzilla comes more and more out of bounds, the more they want to force the Senate to enact unconstitutional laws.
Now we have acting federal congressman saying:
QUOTE
"It is time to shut it down"
"God didn't create the filibuster, it's part of the Senate rules."
"It is outrageous"
"It tends to be, in many cases, the senators from those smaller states that aggregate to get up to be the 40."
"Less populous states end up with a disproportionate amount of power."
This was the design of the bicameral house. This is what the senate was supposed to do. Obstruct, slow down and make sure the disaffected get their say in Fedzilla lest they be crushed by majoritarian politics. It was designed to stop 51% wiping away the 49%.
Anyways, always irritating to see people adopt NEWSPEAK, especially in regards to the constitutional and the Framer's intent. Changing the meaning of words is the next best thing to banning literacy for tyrants.
Re:News (Score:4, Interesting)
isn't causing fear and panic among large swaths of the population in order to affect a political outcome the definition of terrorism? If so, his expert opinion may actually be pretty valid. Just saying.
Re:Maybe if they just reported the damn news! (Score:3, Interesting)
If there's one thing that the founding fathers certainly would balk at, it's the God-like reverence with which they and their document are treated with today.
Although I support the rule of law, the constitution was written almost 225 years ago, for a union of 13 states. Much has changed since then, and the constitution provides an amendment process for this very purpose.
The filibuster rule made sense when there were only 26 senators -- as the number climbed to 100, it became increasingly obvious that it was no longer suitable, as a grandstanding politician could effectively block any piece of legislation, which was increasingly probable as the size of the Senate grew.
Similarly, advances in communications and transportation have made state lines increasingly irrelevant (your rant is a "states rights" thing, right?). It's no surprise that, as people traveled and traded from state-to-state that the federal government would grow in size and importance. The states have also done few favors to themselves, as their governments have proven time and time again to be corrupt and ineffective over the past several decades.