Sneak peek at this Sunday's show
By Cassie Spodak, CNN
The 2012 Democratic National Convention dominated the news this week, and with high profile speeches from Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, and President Obama, the press had much to discuss. But with much of the chatter coming from media outlets in the past week sounding positive, did the media go too easy on the Democratic speakers?
Jackie Kucinich, of USA Today, Jane Hall, of American University's School of Communications, and Bob Cusack, of The Hill, discuss media reaction to the speakers and the Democrats’ appeal to voters at home.
Michelle Cottle, of Newsweek/The Daily Beast, and Matt Lewis, of The Daily Caller, discuss the partisan coverage of the DNC as well as how the prime-time speakers faired on the airwaves and with viewers at home.
Political Convention mayhem may be over but the presidential election cycle will go on for another two months and some journalists are complaining that there’s no “joy” left in covering the campaign. Are candidates more closed off to national journalists than ever before? Or are high profile journalists “whining” and failing to do their jobs?
Erik Wemple, of The Washington Post, and Lois Romano,of Politico, discuss how this election compares to previous ones and the responsibility journalists have to cover politics effectively.
This Sunday 11am ET.
About "Reliable Sources"
Now more than ever, the press is a part of every story it covers. And CNN's "Reliable Sources" is one of television's only regular programs to examine how journalists do their jobs and how the media affect the stories they cover.
Subscribe on iTunes | Instagram
Tune in every Sunday at 11am Eastern time!
About the host
Brian Stelter is the host of "Reliable Sources" and the senior media correspondent for CNN Worldwide. Before he joined CNN in November 2013, Stelter was a media reporter for The New York Times. He is the author of the New York Times best-seller "Top of the Morning."
Here's his biography. You can read his stories on this blog and at CNNMoney.com/Media/.
@cnnreliable on Twitter
You recognize therefore considerably relating to this matter, made me in my view believe it from so many numerous angles. Its like men and women don't seem to be interested until it is something to accomplish with Girl gaga! Your individual stuffs great. At all times maintain it up!
I watched Reliable Sources for the first time today and it will most likely be the last time. In answer to the question, are journalists whining about having to cover the RNC and DNC...yes they are! Pity they actually have to go out and cover the news, especially in this election season. Pity the food is not up to their normal standards. In this economic climate, how dare they complain in covering such important, interesting and newsworthy events as the conventions. But the reason I will stop watching is the comment Howard Kurtz made when speaking about Katie Couric's new program debuting Monday September 10,2010. He explained that Katie has said the show will focus on hard news stories as well. Mr. Kurtz stated that it may be a problem for Katie Couric because most viewers of daily syndicated shows are stay-at-home moms who are more interested in lifetstyle and family issues than the daily news. That is one of the most sexist statements I have ever heard!! Excuse me??? I am not a stay at home mom. I am one of millions of Americans who lost her job 4 years ago, had to move to another state to live with family due to the financial burden, but that did enable me to find a job albeit at a much lower pay rate. Many, many stay-at-home moms are college educated women who care deeply about "hard" news stories. To believe that most stay-at-home moms are more concerned about "lifestyle" issues (whatever that means) than news stories is blatantly sexist and I refuse to watch any program in which the host holds such prejudicial views.
While discussing Chris Matthew’s coverage of the RNC on the 9/2 RS show (just listened to on iTunes) both Howie and his guest talked of Chris Matthew’s being "in the tank." According to the M-W dictionary the phrase means: in or into a decline or slump. Did the commentary mean the relevance of Matthew's commentary is in decline due to Matthew’s and MSNBC having moved to an obviously biased viewpoint? Or did it mean that through biased commentary Matthew’s is acting as fuel for the President’s campaign? I believe that both have a certain amount of validity although I doubt Matthew’s changes many more minds than Bill O’Reilly does. Since I view most of the Fox and MSNBC pundits as using biased and emotive rhetoric to validity their viewers preexisting opinions I believe such commentary can be viewed as fuel as well.
On August 23, CNN produced and aired a salacious report on strip clubs in Tampa, Florida and how operators and dancers expected a cash windfall from visiting Republicans. Did I mention this lengthy report featured footage of two attractive dancers performing "glute to glute"? On the cnn.com webpage, there were many comments denouncing Republicans as kinky, hypocritical or both.
It's regrettable, but probably every large gathering of persons in any major American city leads to more business for the
adult entertainment industry. I'll bet this is also true of Charlotte, North Carolina. However, CNN broadcast or published no similar report on business expectations of strip club operators or dancers the Charlotte area Why not?
A double standard like that makes it look like CNN was seeking to portray Republicans in a bad light, while not reporting a similar story that may reflect poorly on Democrats.