NationStates Jolt Archive

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/election2004.jsp?feature=ne_election5

Right-click on the picture of George and Laura and go to properties and check the image name

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/election2004.jsp?feature=ne_election5

Right-click on the picture of George and Laura and go to properties and check the image name

I'll be damned IDF, how'd you find this. As far as I'm concerned this is absolutely damning to CNN and should be made an issue in the mainstream press. . . . I still can't believe it.

Wow, it says "asshole" on it.

I'll be damned IDF, how'd you find this. As far as I'm concerned this is absolutely damning to CNN and should be made an issue in the mainstream press. . . . I still can't believe it.
I saw it posted on another board. I'm not making a big deal out of it, but everyone says Fox News is OMG!!1 teh evil conservative bias and CNN is teh moderate News channel OMG!!!111

I'll admit that both are biased, but it seems that no liberal will admit CNN as biased.

Fox is conservative while CNN is liberal. Simple as that

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/election2004.jsp?feature=ne_election5

Right-click on the picture of George and Laura and go to properties and check the image name

Except that first, this doesn't prove anything about the network. All it indicates is that one of the people who maintains that ONE CNN website dislikes Bush. That name doesn't appear on the main CNN website, for instance.

Second, what makes you think it's an indication of "liberal" bias? There are plenty of people that aren't liberals who think Bush is an asshole. Everyone from Libertarians to Communists to Fascists, to, even, gasp, moderate Republicans.

How much do you want to bet that John McCain thinks Bush is an asshole, too?

Give me a break. All this "proves" is that you [edit: or rather, whoever found this] have too much time on your hands.

I'll be damned IDF, how'd you find this. As far as I'm concerned this is absolutely damning to CNN and should be made an issue in the mainstream press. . . . I still can't believe it.

And exactly what is the "mainstream" press, if CNN is now excluded from that definition?

How much do you want to bet that John McCain thinks Bush is an asshole, too?

.



McCain only supports Bush because Bush is a Republican, otherwise they'd be mortal enemies because of what Bush said about him during the 2000 Republican Primaries.

McCain only supports Bush because Bush is a Republican, otherwise they'd be mortal enemies because of what Bush said about him during the 2000 Republican Primaries.
And because McCain wants one more shot at the brass ring in 2008. He knows that in order to get the nod, he has to have the support of party bigwigs, and that means playing along.

And exactly what is the "mainstream" press, if CNN is now excluded from that definition?

I started to add to that and didn't because it leads me to the idea of making a smart ass comment. Yes, CNN is a part of the mainstream press and I don't think anyone in the other mainstream outlets will even consider reporting this. I also don't buy the argument this is just an abberation from some single dude at CNN; it's a major news organization that watches out for crap like this from its employees, it has to. For it to get by indicates to me clear complicity of some kind from someone higher up that some lowly employee maintaining a web page.

I started to add to that and didn't because it leads me to the idea of making a smart ass comment. Yes, CNN is a part of the mainstream press and I don't think anyone in the other mainstream outlets will even consider reporting this. I also don't buy the argument this is just an abberation from some single dude at CNN; it's a major news organization that watches out for crap like this from its employees, it has to. For it to get by indicates to me clear complicity of some kind from someone higher up that some lowly employee maintaining a web page.

Oh yeah, I can imagine this one coming down from the top...

(setting: A room full of shadowy execs)

Man at Head of Table: Well gentlemen, despite our bets efforts, George Bush has won.

(Grumbling, hissing)

MHT: Now, we need to start thinking about what to do next. Any ideas?

#1: Run some unsubstantiated stories about electoral fraud?

#2: Forge some memos?

MHT: No, no, those have all been done.

#3: How about we name a picture of Bush and his wife on one of the more obscure pages "Asshole?"

MHT: Now youre talking! Bob, get someone on that. By jove, we're back in the game!

Yeah, what you propose makes about that much sense.

Oh yeah, I can imagine this one coming down from the top...

(setting: A room full of shadowy execs)

Man at Head of Table: Well gentlemen, despite our bets efforts, George Bush has won.

(Grumbling, hissing)

MHT: Now, we need to start thinking about what to do next. Any ideas?

#1: Run some unsubstantiated stories about electoral fraud?

#2: Forge some memos?

MHT: No, no, those have all been done.

#3: How about we name a picture of Bush and his wife on one of the more obscure pages "Asshole?"

MHT: Now youre talking! Bob, get someone on that. By jove, we're back in the game!

Yeah, what you propose makes about that much sense.

You misunderstand my comment. I don't claim it was a directive from someone on top in some shadowy boardroom, I mean that it is something that, in all probability, a mid-level manager allowed with a "wink and a nod" to take place - dude did it and his supervisor deliberately ignored it.

You misunderstand my comment. I don't claim it was a directive from someone on top in some shadowy boardroom, I mean that it is something that, in all probability, a mid-level manager allowed with a "wink and a nod" to take place - dude did it and his supervisor deliberately ignored it.

Occam's razor leads me to believe otherwise...why must it be a supervisor when it could just be some programmer? So long as it ain't the frontpage of CNN.com, this is a pretty small fish, indeed. This is my point.

And, yeah, who found this pic anyway? Someone who just happened to be saving a pic of George and Laura? That, too, seems fishy...

You misunderstand my comment. I don't claim it was a directive from someone on top in some shadowy boardroom, I mean that it is something that, in all probability, a mid-level manager allowed with a "wink and a nod" to take place - dude did it and his supervisor deliberately ignored it.
You misunderstand the routine that goes on in most businesses' web design departments - Supervisors aren't going to look at the actual code to see if there's any rude words, and if they do it will be just a quick flick, taking in the top and bottom and looking for any massive
********************************************
BUSH IS TEH ASSHOLE! REPUBLICANS SUZ0RZ!!!!!
********************************************
type inclusions. They won't be looking at the name of the target of every <img src=" " > in the code, especially in an image-heavy site like CNN. They'll just make sure there aren't any obvious abuses and that it renders correctly. Maybe not even that - especially as these are going to be a busy few days for CNN and their site maintainers.

No winks or nods, just a Democrat maintainer pissed off at Bush.
Dial back your Conspiracy Detector.

OK Anbar and Kelonian, but now it's out there, don't you think CNN would have picked up on it and wanted to have it changed/pulled by now? I mean, surely you agree that it makes them look bad. If they allow it to persist, doesn't it lend some credence to the idea that they do have a bias? I'm willing to believe some low level dork did it on his own initiative, but for it to remain this long smacks to me as being a wink and a nod. No conspiracy theory, just evidence of a prejudice that is tolerated. Kind of like a wink and a nod in the real estate industry when racial steering takes place. No organized conspiracy to deny minorities nice houses in nice areas, just a wink and a nod when the agents don't show them those houses.

You misunderstand my comment. I don't claim it was a directive from someone on top in some shadowy boardroom, I mean that it is something that, in all probability, a mid-level manager allowed with a "wink and a nod" to take place - dude did it and his supervisor deliberately ignored it.
Maybe you should try:

getalife.org (http://www.getalife.org)

OK Anbar and Kelonian, but now it's out there, don't you think CNN would have picked up on it and wanted to have it changed/pulled by now? I mean, surely you agree that it makes them look bad. If they allow it to persist, doesn't it lend some credence to the idea that they do have a bias? I'm willing to believe some low level dork did it on his own initiative, but for it to remain this long smacks to me as being a wink and a nod. No conspiracy theory, just evidence of a prejudice that is tolerated. Kind of like a wink and a nod in the real estate industry when racial steering takes place. No organized conspiracy to deny minorities nice houses in nice areas, just a wink and a nod when the agents don't show them those houses.

Who's reported it? To whom? And moreover, who cares? I doubt there are that many people downloading that image who would find the filename.

Looks like they caught wind of it and it's been changed. Kind of a bummer.

Looks like they caught wind of it and it's been changed. Kind of a bummer.
Still is unchanged on my puter:

http://cdn-channels.netscape.com/cppops/features/n/ne_election5/i/asshole.jpg

Nevermind, I kept looking in the wrong spot. Thanks.

that's nothing -- the majoity of the news ancors looked like they were in tears

And exactly what is the "mainstream" press, if CNN is now excluded from that definition?

I expect he thinks Fox News is mainstream. :D

that's nothing -- the majoity of the news ancors looked like they were in tears

WTFRUTA?

that's nothing -- the majoity of the news ancors looked like they were in tears

Would this have anything to do with them being awake until ungodly hours following the elections, like a lot of other people that didn't have to wake up at 4AM?

I expect he thinks Fox News is mainstream. :D

It is. Unless, by definition, mainstream news needs a left bias.

Fox is widely acknowledged to be valid and is not considered less reliable than other sources by most people.

The cooks in this forum make it out to be a distrusted propaganda stream no serious person watches but thats simply not true. Although my personal preference remains MSNBC, Fox reports actual events just as well as CNN does, and when it comes to something like US forces treating people for disease and such, they often BRAG that they are the only ones on scene to get the footage. In face of all the cynicism and angry quacking, that is very refreshing. Good news from Iraq shouldnt be repressed because it isnt profitable.

Its a pretty normal US news channel, and reliable at that. The only diffrence is that they dont cast Bush or US war efforts in a bad light, which causes the radical democratic base (and also, to no one's great suprise, the public networks of Britain and Canada) to squawk like overstimulated chickens with megaphones and large amounts of PcP readily being pumped into their blood.

Fox is widely acknowledged to be valid and is not considered less reliable than other sources by most people.


Its a pretty normal US news channel, and reliable at that.


Funniest thing I've read in years! It's rather like saying the National Inquirer is a serious newspaper.

Fox really isnt that bad as long as you dont listen to the commentary. Just like any news source, commentary is biased...period...the reporters have their views and they bleed into their news stories.

It DOES bug me that they half present shows like hannity and colmes and O'reilley as news sources but its basically the same as 60 minutes. Sensationalist rabblerousing.


Just watch the news..take the undisputed facts they offer freely....cut out the editorializing and shrug.


Or.....be intelligent...get your news from as many sources as you can, and thus learn about everyones viewpoints and draw your own conclusions.

Funniest thing I've read in years! It's rather like saying the National Inquirer is a serious newspaper.

The DNP has had no trouble whatsoever collaborating with and enduring Fox.

Unless there are signficant statements from the FCC or the DNC about false information from the station, and it is pulled from major American networks, your claim is ludicrous.

Fox really isnt that bad as long as you dont listen to the commentary. Just like any news source, commentary is biased...period...the reporters have their views and they bleed into their news stories.

It DOES bug me that they half present shows like hannity and colmes and O'reilley as news sources but its basically the same as 60 minutes. Sensationalist rabblerousing.


Just watch the news..take the undisputed facts they offer freely....cut out the editorializing and shrug.


Or.....be intelligent...get your news from as many sources as you can, and thus learn about everyones viewpoints and draw your own conclusions.

As you plainly pointed out, the same can be said for most news sources, although there are a few which are overly biased or fictious. Thankfully, most of those are public stations managed by other government.

If i was looking for Iraq news i would check Al Jazerra just as quickly as CNN. The only thing i would avoid pathologically is the BBC World Service, which sounds repulsively arrogant no matter what they are reporting, and are more biased than anything known in the US to boot. Yes, i prefer Al-Jazzera's english website over BBC World Service's.

Funniest thing I've read in years! It's rather like saying the National Inquirer is a serious newspaper.

The National Inquirer is a serious Newspaper... their stories are crap, Some are even products of their imagination, they get attention with shocking headlines and they love putting the spin on stories... like other Serious Newspapers.

The differences between them and other newspapers is that they cost exactly what they're worth, they know what people think of them and still they print their stuff cuz people will buy them...

oh and they're great for dogs to do their "buiness" on too.

The DNP has had no trouble whatsoever collaborating with and enduring Fox.

Unless there are signficant statements from the FCC or the DNC about false information from the station, and it is pulled from major American networks, your claim is ludicrous.

I claimed nothing, ducky. The only claims here are yours.

I claimed nothing, ducky. The only claims here are yours.

Have you ever watched normal Fox News programming? Just avoid the talkshows and its quite fine.

Commercial news channels suck, they're ENTERTAINMENT people!
Watch a non-commecial station for real news.

*waves a little SBS flag*

Congressional and open-forum services are the only ones worth watching. State-sponsored news media is heavily biased (My experience being with BBC World Service, BBC, CBC, SABC, SABC Africa, and CN with English subtitles.) Oddly enough, although they get nearly guaranteed funds, they still focus on entertainment.

NPR is the only state-sponsored news service i do not laugh at. It reports news reliably and with a very slight and very respectably implemented left bias. Parlimental-service style channels like CSPAN can be nice if there is an important and active debate involves, but usually arent very useful.

And im not sure all of us can recieve SBS, or wish to.

And im not sure all of us can recieve SBS, or wish to.
A little snarky there?

I wasn't implying that everyone should or can or whatever. I was merely saying that that is the channel I watch the news on, and I like it.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/election2004.jsp?feature=ne_election5

Right-click on the picture of George and Laura and go to properties and check the image name

The webmaster hates Bush. And you're damning the whole network?

And that isn't even the actual CNN website.

Am not quite sure what you mean by state-sponsored. Please explain.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/election2004.jsp?feature=ne_election5

Right-click on the picture of George and Laura and go to properties and check the image name
hey, that's pretty funny!

Am not quite sure what you mean by state-sponsored. Please explain.Rather than receiving funding solely from advertising, these networks receive some or all of their funding from the government.

Am not quite sure what you mean by state-sponsored. Please explain.

State sponsored generally means that the federal government supplies a great deal of the money which runs the channel. I leave great liberty for the amount of control offered from thereon. In the US, public TV just needs educational show quotas and the oppurtunity for underappreciated television programmes to run independantly of popular opinion (think Dr. Who.) In South Africa, the government has strict broadcasting standards and is intolerant of any dissent, and the broadcasters will remove anything they think the government might not like, even if the government originated the idea.

The webmaster hates Bush. And you're damning the whole network?

And that isn't even the actual CNN website.

I think it's the perception. After all, it bears CNN name. When Dan Quayle said the spelling bee contestent mis-spelled potato, it gave him a bad image... reguardless that the card was also mis-spelled.

Have you ever watched normal Fox News programming? Just avoid the talkshows and its quite fine.

Oh, really?

I watched about 30 seconds of campaign coverage once while in a business' waiting room. An interviewer was posing a question to a republican pundit. He opened his mouth and what came out, the lead-in to this "journalistic" question, was as follows: "We know that president Bush is strong on defence..."

That was all it took: 30 seconds.

Now, I know that most Bush supporters believed he was strong on defence, but I also know that most Bush critics considered his defence policies a strong measure of his sheer incompitence. How does a so-called "journalist" make such an obviously ass-kissingly partisan remark? He works for FOX, that's how.

Talk shows aside, FOX is even more conservative-biased than NPR is liberal-biased. It's true liberal mirror is The Daily Show



(...and don't try to tell me that TDS knocked just as hard on Kerry as it did on Bush. But maybe they would have, if the Truth did not have such a liberal bias... )

In South Africa, the government has strict broadcasting standards and is intolerant of any dissent, and the broadcasters will remove anything they think the government might not like, even if the government originated the idea.
Well according to Reporters Without Borders (Press freedom stats (http://www.humanitas-international.org/homepage-news.htm) ) South Africa's press is more free than Australia...
And besides, I think great strides have been made in terms of freedom of information since apartheid right? Right?

"We know that president Bush is strong on defence..."

*troutslap*

CNN said this. NBC said this. Its based on poll data.

It is. Unless, by definition, mainstream news needs a left bias.

Fox is widely acknowledged to be valid and is not considered less reliable than other sources by most people.

Who is "most people"? Don't even pretend like you've done a poll on this.

The cooks in this forum

A "cook" is someone who makes a meal. Perhaps you're thinking of "kooks".

make it out to be a distrusted propaganda stream no serious person watches but thats simply not true.

I agree. I for instance, watch Fox News whenever I can. But I do it for humor.

Although my personal preference remains MSNBC, Fox reports actual events just as well as CNN does, and when it comes to something like US forces treating people for disease and such, they often BRAG that they are the only ones on scene to get the footage. In face of all the cynicism and angry quacking, that is very refreshing. Good news from Iraq shouldnt be repressed because it isnt profitable.

But neither should it be EXAGGERATED. Like the shit in Afghanistan. "Women are free!" Yeah, in KABUL. The rest of the country is controlled by religious fanatic warlords. This is different from the Taliban, how? "300 new schools built!" Yeah. But no ROADS. Wow, fucking fantastic.

In Iraq, we get things like, "footage of Iraqi merchants thanking Americans." Wow, sweet. That totally makes up for all the dead people. 100,000 Iraqis and over 1,000 US troops dead, but at least Abdul likes us- or at least gave us a nice photo op.

I'm totally for showing ALL the news. But you're insane if you think that Iraq is going well, and that's how Fox tries to spin it with their "good news segments". It's bullshit. Like when Brit Hume tried to make the comparison between Iraqi fatalities and California fatalities:

http://www.wage-slave.org/archives/00000233.html

Two hundred seventy-seven U.S. soldiers have now died in Iraq, which means that statistically speaking U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California, which is roughly the same geographical size. The most recent statistics indicate California has more than 2300 homicides each year, which means about 6.6 murders each day. Meanwhile, U.S. troops have been in Iraq for 160 days, which means they're incurring about 1.7 deaths, including illness and accidents each day.

Don't you DARE try and say THAT isn't spin. And Hume is supposed to be one of their "news" guys, NOT commentary, like, say, O'Reilly.

Its a pretty normal US news channel

What the hell does that even MEAN? What's a "normal" news channel? Particularly since Fox fans say that the majority of the media is biased and "liberal"? :headbang:

*troutslap*

CNN said this. NBC said this. Its based on poll data.

*bitchslap*

If I had ever heard them say that I would have laughed at them too.

Well according to Reporters Without Borders (Press freedom stats (http://www.humanitas-international.org/homepage-news.htm) ) South Africa's press is more free than Australia...
And besides, I think great strides have been made in terms of freedom of information since apartheid right? Right?

You have no idea :(

The South Africa press is free if you can afford premium news services, most of them foreign, which are still highly regulated (you cannot get unedited TIME magazine, for example. You get an edited "European Edition.") The SABC vilifies the West and glorifies nations like China and Cuba. People are being taught to hate Americans. I have been back in about early 2002 and saw this in person. If you were used to CNN, NBC, Fox, ABC, CBS, NPR, or any US news service, you would likely feel offended by SABC1 and SABC Africa. Just because the government doesnt have laws allowing direct control doesnt mean they effectively cant. When eTV started (very, VERY meekly) supporting an opposition party to the ANC they suddenly found themselves being accused of broadcasting law infractions, although a private channel (Mnet) was showing pornographic films at illegal hours and were getting away with it fine. Its like the polar opposite of McCarthyism, and the government doesnt take enough action

You have no idea.

You have no idea.

You have no idea.

EDIT: Just spoke to two australians on Starlink.

<name-blanked> australia has free press?
<blanker> relatively
<name-blanked> hardly

You have no idea

The South Africa press is free if you can afford premium news services, most of them foreign, which are still highly regulated (you cannot get unedited TIME magazine, for example. You get an edited "European Edition.") The SABC vilifies the West and glorifies nations like China and Cuba. People are being taught to hate Americans. I have been back in about early 2002 and saw this in person. If you were used to CNN, NBC, Fox, ABC, CBS, NPR, or any US news service, you would likely feel offended by SABC1 and SABC Africa. Just because the government doesnt have laws allowing direct control doesnt mean they effectively cant. When eTV started (very, VERY meekly) supporting an opposition party to the ANC they suddenly found themselves being accused of broadcasting law infractions, although a private channel (Mnet) was showing pornographic films at illegal hours and were getting away with it fine. Its like the polar opposite of McCarthyism, and the government doesnt take enough action

You have no idea.

You have no idea.

You have no idea.
Um, I HAVE been back, and I don't think it's as bad as you think at all... And I'd HARDLY say the SABC vilifies the West and "glorifies" Cuba and China. Mayb the slant is a little different, but the last time I checked my friends back in SA were still able to think for themselves. And besides, it's not like we have perfectly unbiased news...
Not sure about the eTV thing though- although I wouldn't exacly put it past the Mbeki government.
And on the Cuba thing, I understand why South Africans have a soft spot for them. They were pretty committed to our liberation...

The National Inquirer is a serious Newspaper... their stories are crap, Some are even products of their imagination, they get attention with shocking headlines and they love putting the spin on stories... like other Serious Newspapers.

The differences between them and other newspapers is that they cost exactly what they're worth, they know what people think of them and still they print their stuff cuz people will buy them...

oh and they're great for dogs to do their "buiness" on too.

My, that's an apt parallel with Fox if I ever heard one. As for their bias, CAC, it's well known that viewers of Fox are more misinformed on the issues than those who use other news sources. The PIPA study proved this some time ago. No study has ever proven a leftist bias anywhere else. Fancy that.

Steven Kull et al, "Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War," Program on International Policy Attitudes / Knowledge Networks, October 2003.

This is very old news.

Well, CNN fixed it. Was funny while it lasted.

Don't know if it's already been posted... but an article on them removing it: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41291

Don't know if it's already been posted... but an article on them removing it: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41291
Wow!!! I beat newsmax when I posted this. Someone check Drudge and see if he covered it.

Fox is conservative while CNN is liberal. Simple as thatThe fact that Murdochs(NewsCorp) FOX is resutely pro-Republican...does not make CNN anti-Republican...

CNN likes Bush...Why? because CNN main bias is Pro-Jewish.
Very Key Influential Mind in Bushs circle are Jews...or proJews.

That makes CNN pro IrakWar.

BTW My signature comes from your "liberal" :D CNN.

Oh, really?

I hate to tell you this but it is less a sign of partisanship than the laziness about fact and diction which infest the US national TV news networks, and CBC too. I don't think I've listened to over 20 minutes of a news program on any channel in the past year without at least once being told X opinion is fact, or Y is the greatest ever (well if you don't count anything over two years ago) or that Z fact is so (when it is only alleged to have happened). Opinion and fact have become so blurred that I doubt half of the time people would even realize they were presenting opinion as fact if you pointed it out to them. I challenge you to listen to any major network newscast for half an hour and fail to find at least one instance of opinion being confused with fact or theories being presented as proven when they are only being presented by the theorizer or history being ignored.


I amend that, The McNiel-Leher Newshour, or whatever they're calling it these days, has never to my memory made any of the mistakes I see on the commercial networks newscasts regularily, at least as far as the anchors are concerned.

I hate to tell you this but it is less a sign of partisanship than the laziness about fact and diction which infest the US national TV news networks, and CBC too. I don't think I've listened to over 20 minutes of a news program on any channel in the past year without at least once being told X opinion is fact, or Y is the greatest ever (well if you don't count anything over two years ago) or that Z fact is so (when it is only alleged to have happened). Opinion and fact have become so blurred that I doubt half of the time people would even realize they were presenting opinion as fact if you pointed it out to them. I challenge you to listen to any major network newscast for half an hour and fail to find at least one instance of opinion being confused with fact or theories being presented as proven when they are only being presented by the theorizer or history being ignored.


I amend that, The McNiel-Leher Newshour, or whatever they're calling it these days, has never to my memory made any of the mistakes I see on the commercial networks newscasts regularily, at least as far as the anchors are concerned.

I "hate" to tell you this:

20 minutes >> 30 seconds.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/election2004.jsp?feature=ne_election5

Right-click on the picture of George and Laura and go to properties and check the image name

uh... right. it's "georgelaura135", what in the hell is so offensive about that?

uh... right. it's "georgelaura135", what in the hell is so offensive about that?

Before the changed it, it was a more accurate "asshole.jpg".

You misunderstand my comment. I don't claim it was a directive from someone on top in some shadowy boardroom, I mean that it is something that, in all probability, a mid-level manager allowed with a "wink and a nod" to take place - dude did it and his supervisor deliberately ignored it.

It's an inside joke. Get over. Everybody thought Kerry's Munster pics were funny. This is some CNN employee's version of funny.
It's really no big deal y'all...

I "hate" to tell you this:

20 minutes >> 30 seconds.I cannot count the number of times I have heard this sort of carelessness in the first 30 seconds of listening to a newsprogram. In the past year I have not gone 20 minutes of lidstening to news on any channel except PBS and not heard at least one instance of this. Since I tend to get about 3 hours of TV news/day during the week (it's background during the day) this is a pretty common occurance. Go ahead, listen to a half hour news program by a professional news service and see if you can avoid hearing at least one instance of this. It may be a sign of partisanship, but considering how common the carelessness has become in broadcast news I think it far more likely to be a sign of that fairly universal carelessness.

Wow!!! I beat newsmax when I posted this. Someone check Drudge and see if he covered it.

Are you planning on acknowledging your mistake any time soon?