Sunday, December 14

Rolling Stone & UVA—Did the reporter have an agenda? How the CIA uses misinformation; should the media publish hacked emails? Obama's recent media blitz; an American journalist held in Iran.

Rolling Stone & UVA—Did the reporter have an agenda? How the CIA uses misinformation; should the media publish hacked emails? Obama's recent media blitz; an American journalist held in Iran.

April 27th, 2012
02:01 PM ET

Sneak peek at this Sunday's show

By Pallavi Reddy, CNN

We’ve been hearing the positive and negative coverage of presidential candidates, but a recent Project for Excellence in Journalism study gives us a winner for best coverage and loser for the worst. The results may surprise you. Mitt Romney has had the most positive coverage during the primary season and President Obama has had the worst. PEJ’s Mark Jurkowitz, Change the Ratio founder Rachel Sklar, and Newsweek/Daily Beast contributing editor and CNN contributor David Frum will be on to discuss the studies’ results and the flak the president has been getting about his appearance on “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon.”

The new HBO show “Girls” premiered just a few weeks ago amid lots of hype and continues to grab a lot of people’s attention between bitter attacks claiming racism, nepotism, and nearly anything else. Jezebel.com founder Anna Holmes and Huffington Post's TV critic Maureen Ryan join the discussion to talk about how this show has become a point of controversy.

We now live in a world where we’re constantly inundated with information and have access to news at our fingertips at all times. Clay Johnson, the author of a book “The Information Diet” will talk to us about how to weed out junk information and only get the information that you want and need.

Also, we’ll bring you an update on the Fox News mole Joe Muto and the accusations against him. In case you missed the interview, check it out here.

This Sunday 11 a.m. ET on CNN.

Posted by
Filed under: Sneak Peek
soundoff (3 Responses)
  1. sharon schafer

    I would like Reliable Sources to identify the news organizations who invite questionable "newsmakers" to dinner in the presence of the president as occurs with the Correspondents' annual dinner each spring. I wish to boycott such organizations for elevating guests such as those who have served prison time (Lindsey Lohan, e.g.) and those who simply hang out (Kim Kardashian, e.g.) with no clear goals in life. I taught for thirty years in tough neighborhoods in the DC area and have not ever been invited to dinner with the president. So why are they? It is time to draw the line.

    April 29, 2012 at 12:04 pm | Reply
    • Aayush

      _______________________________Tract on Monetary Reform_______________________________Our economy is swloly dying, your job, lifestyle are dominated by anxiety.No one is proposing a solution because no one has the slightest idea of why it is happening and many have vested interest in the present system. However an objective observation of the phenomenon can help us understand it and provide us with an innovative solution. Of course we can't solve the problem with the tools that brought us there in the first place and we need a new ideology.- Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?- Well, remember that what an ideology is, is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to - to exist, you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not. And what I'm saying to you is, yes, I found a flaw. I don't know how significant or permanent it is, but I've been very distressed by that fact. – You found a flaw in the reality...(!!!???)- Flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak. – In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working? _______________________________In order to alleviate those economic woes wee need to create, as fast as possible, a new credit free currency that will solve the credit crunch and bring incremental jobs, consumption and investments to the present system.It is urgent if we want to limit social, political and military chaos._______________________________Is the fulfilment of these ideas a visionary hope? Have they insufficient roots in the motives which govern the evolution of political society? Are the interests which they will thwart stronger and more obvious than those which they will serve?I do not attempt an answer in this place. It would need a volume of a different character from this one to indicate even in outline the practical measures in which they might be gradually clothed. But if the ideas are correct an hypothesis on which the author himself must necessarily base what he writes it would be a mistake, I predict, to dispute their potency over a period of time. At the present moment people are unusually expectant of a more fundamental diagnosis; more particularly ready to receive it; eager to try it out, if it should be even plausible.But apart from this contemporary mood, the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas.Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil._______________________________More Jobs, No Debt, No Fear.Prosperous, Fair and Stable._______________________________

      June 29, 2012 at 2:04 am | Reply
  2. Jeff Bucley

    The HUGE difference between what Obama has done on the comedy shows this past week and what past Presidents have done is he advocated a policy position, past presidents have just made jokes mostly about themselves or in Clinton's case playing an instrument. Obama was all politics!

    April 29, 2012 at 11:31 am | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.