{"id":1758,"date":"2007-07-16T10:41:19","date_gmt":"2007-07-16T14:41:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cleek.lunarpages.com\/blogs\/?p=1758"},"modified":"2007-07-16T10:41:19","modified_gmt":"2007-07-16T14:41:19","slug":"cnns-response-to-michael-moore","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ok-cleek.com\/blogs\/?p=1758","title":{"rendered":"CNN's response to Michael Moore"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Look at CNN getting all <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2007\/SHOWBIZ\/Movies\/07\/15\/moore.gupta\/index.html\">picky and defensive and hyper-critical<\/a> about Michael Moore and his new movie. They do an exhausting point-by-point rebuttal of Moore's rebuttal to their initial point-by-point critique of the movie. That's right, this is a re-re-buttal of a critique of a movie. Boy how they <em>hateses <\/em>it when someone fails to present the data in the proper way! I pity the next fool who tries to make a point but fails to adequately concede all the different ways the same data can be interpreted ! <\/p>\n<p>Indeed, I heartily applaud their zealous pursuit of the truth. I wonder, though, did I miss their rebuttal of <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2003\/US\/02\/05\/sprj.irq.powell.un\/\">Colin Powell's 2003 Iraq WMD slideshow<\/a> ? That raised, for me, a lot of questions that I thought somebody should've asked. Did CNN ask any of them? Doesn't look like it. The closest thing I could find was an article which uncritically listed each of <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2003\/US\/02\/05\/sprj.irq.key.points.txt\/index.html\">Powell's main points<\/a> - \"Powell said...\", \"...said Powell\" - without a hint of skepticism or critical examination. Should I be puzzled ?<\/p>\n<p>CNN: bitchy nitpickers when it comes to Michael Moore \/ kowtowing stenographers when it comes to BushCo's case for war.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Look at CNN getting all picky and defensive and hyper-critical about Michael Moore and his new movie. They do an exhausting point-by-point rebuttal of Moore's rebuttal to their initial point-by-point critique of the movie. That's right, this is a re-re-buttal of a critique of a movie. Boy how they hateses it when someone fails to [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1758","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ok-cleek.com\/blogs\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1758","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ok-cleek.com\/blogs\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ok-cleek.com\/blogs\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ok-cleek.com\/blogs\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ok-cleek.com\/blogs\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1758"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ok-cleek.com\/blogs\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1758\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ok-cleek.com\/blogs\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1758"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ok-cleek.com\/blogs\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1758"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ok-cleek.com\/blogs\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1758"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}